POLICY MAKING

Policy- making is an activity that seeks to generate order out of the chaos of both
natural events and the unintended accidents that result from uncoordinated and self -
interested human actions. James Anderson (1975: 3) succinctly defined the policy
process as ‘a purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in
dealing with a problem or matter of concern’. An essential feature of policy, as
opposed to the wider issue of politics, is that it is about the planning, implementation,
and consequences of deliberate efforts to resolve problems or seize opportunities
affecting a country or a society, or, outside the realm of the public sector, a business
or even a family.

Policymaking can be an adversarial process, characterized by the clash of

competing and conflicting interests and viewpoints rather than an impartial,
disinterested, or "objective" search for "correct" solutions for policy issues. The larger
and more diverse the constituency, the more difficult policymaking becomes,
particularly when addressing regional issues

PUBLIC POLICY- MAKING CHALLENGES

Political challenges

Policy-making is a quintessentially political process in that it affects who gets what,

making it vital for policy actors to understand the political implications of their actions
(Lasswell 1958). Merely understanding policy-making as an analytical exercise
identifying the costs and benefits of different policy alternatives, for example is not
enough; policymakers need also to come to grips with the political dynamics
underlying the policy activities in which they engage. Successful policy actors need
to survey the policy-making field in which they themselves are situated.

Policy-making is embedded in a world of formal and informal political com - promises

and deal making. Policy actors need therefore to understand how and why to
compromise—to acknowledge the trade-offs between policy theory and practice that
may be needed to secure agreement among contending actors and interests on a
particular course of action that government or other strong policy actors may desire.

Technical challenges
Governments also face a variety of technical and analytical challenges in
understanding policy problems and their root causes, and in devising solutions for
them based on realistic estimates of future effects and outcomes (Pollock et al.
1993). There is often not enough information available on the historical or even
current situation encountered by a government for it to fully specify the nature and
scope of the policy problem itself, let alone its solution. Nor are the analytical tools
that would help analyse available information, isolate cause and effect relationships,
and inform effective policy action always available (Howlett 2015; Hsu 2016). The
reality is that most civil servants lack even basic training in the substantive areas in
which they work (Howlett and Wellstead 2011; Howlett 2009) and often lack the skills
and analytical competences needed to plug the information gaps and related
uncertainties that plague decision-making and policy formulation and
implementation.

Operational challenges

Policymaking also involves serious operational challenges. Organizing collective

actions inevitably involves numerous individuals and agencies in complex
deliberative and analytical processes. Governments need to ensure that officials and
agencies work in unison towards shared goals. Coordinating and integrating the
myriad efforts of large and diverse public agencies across levels of government, and
often in concert with actors in the private and non-profit sectors is an extraordinarily
difficult task (Vince 2015; Briassoulis 2005)

PUBLIC POLICY-MAKING PROCESS

In the policy-making process, solution options are developed. Theses solution
options are presented in the media by interest groups, citizens and civil servants, as
well as within the political circles.
The policy process consists of the performance of five vital activities: agenda setting,
formulation, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation. These policy activities
can be thought of as unfolding in “stages” with some progression of policy-making
from one stage to another. Exactly in what order these activities occur and how they
are linked together varies from case to case. Each is a discrete, often inter related,
set of activities that often occurs in fits and starts in cycles of attention and
inattention to certain issues by government (Downs 1972; Kingdon 1984; Teisman
2000).
 
1. Agenda: Getting Government to Consider the Proble m
 The policy agenda is comprise of items, which receive serious attention from official
policy-makers. Only a small number of needs and wants ever attain a place on the
policy agenda of an executive, legislative, or judicial branch of government.
Generally, it depends on the power, status, membership and other resources of the
people or group who are adversely affected by the problem. A crisis event, a mass
movement, or an influential leader may get an item on the policy agenda.

2. Policy Formulation: Getting Government to Consider Solutions

Policy formulation involves the development of alternative courses of government

activity designed to address problems, which may be on, or expected to appear on
the government agenda. Due to competition for their attention and/or the urgency of
the issues they face, policymakers typically have only brief windows of opportunity to
come up with actionable solutions, and such pressure can lead to erroneous choices
from a short or long run perspective. Policy actors can help to foster the
development of policy ideas long before these issues reach the policy agenda; in so
doing, they may help improve both the chance of their issue being taken up and the
likelihood of future policy effectiveness.
3. Decision Making
Decision-making occurs throughout the policy process. It involves governmental
authorities deciding on a particular course of action, which is expected to address
some policy problem. Such choices are absolutely critical, of course, in determining
what action a government will take and how it will be implemented and, as such, are
an indispensable part of policy-making and ultimately of policy success or failure.
Often only senior levels of the government are involved in this kind of decision-
making, though they typically consult others in the government or civil society before
arriving at decisions. This provides many opportunities for actors, interest groups,
policy managers, and others to influence the content and direction of the policy
decisions (Clemens and Cook 1999).
 4.  Policy Implementation: Getting Government to Apply the Solution to the
Problem
The law, rule, or order that results from the adoption stage can be called a public
policy. Without implementation, there is virtually no effect, but the act of
implementation may change the nature of the policy itself. Public administrators are
the primary implementers of public policy. In the implementation stage, policy is
actually given form and effect (Hill and Hupe 2009). The critical influence that
implementing officials at all levels in public service and within in civil society will have
in determining policy success and failure on the ground rarely captures the public’s
or even policymakers’ attention (Sabatier and Mazmanian 1981). In order to improve
implementation, governments need to not only fully understand their options and
spell out their decisions clearly, but also to provide incentives to implementers to
improve implementation activities and disincentives towards administrative
misbehaviour and impulsiveness (Deschenaux 2015).

5. Policy Evaluation: Did It Work?

Policy evaluation is a final critical policy activity. It involves the assessment of the
extent to which a public policy is achieving its stated objectives and, if it is not, what
can be done to improve it (Stufflebeam 2001). Evaluations must not only be clear
about what lessons can be learned from experience, but also ensure that they are
designed in such a way that appropriate lessons are learned. Interest groups, and
other nongovernmental actors often carry out evaluations, but the direct access to
information on policy performance enjoyed by public managers provides them with
distinct advantages in this activity.

ACTORS IN THE POLICY POCESS

Governmental actors

The permanent players in the policy process are governmental actors operating at
subnational, national, and increasingly international levels who actually develop,
decide upon, and implement public policies. Governmental actors include elected
officials as well as appointed administrators. Elected officials include legislators and
executive members, while appointees include civil servants and members of the
judiciary. The exact role they play in policy-making depends upon the issue as well
as the configuration of state institutions.

Societal actors

The range of societal actors involved in the policy process and policy communities is
potentially very large, since it is sometimes possible for individuals, acting as
activists, litigants, or voters, to bring items to the government agenda. Such
individuals may attempt to have an impact on policy through public and legal action,
such as demonstrations or lawsuits, right up to and through the implementation and
evaluation stages.

International actors

International actors constitute a third general category of policy community

membership, but one, which varies considerably by policy area (Reinicke 1999).
These actors may be individuals working as advisors or consultants to national
governments or donor organizations, or members of international.