Geo

 Discuss the main stages of policy process in relation to any social sector

 

 

Policy is a statement by government of what it intends to do such as a law, regulation, rulling, decision, order or a combination of these. The lack of such statements may also be an implicit statement of policy. Policy is produced by the policy process, which is normally conceptualised as a cycle. Тhe policy process is normally initiated by a political decision (usually in the form of general declaration of policy objectives), followed by detailed policy development that produces options for more specific political decisions on the policy instrument to be enacted (passed). Once enacted, the instrument is implemented and subsequently assessed, which in turn may lead to further policy development (and possibly amendments to the instrument) or even to reconsideration and modification of the initial political decision.  A policy might be a law, a regulation or the set of all the laws and regulations that govern a particular issue, area or problem (Birkland Thomas 2011). According to Devon Dodd and Hébert-Boyd, (2000) policy is a plan of action agreed to by a group of people with the power to carry it out and enforce it. types of policy.

According to Torjam (2005), there are four types of policy which are public policy, organizational policy, functional policy and specific policy.

Public policy: generally determines the lines along which human beings in a particular country can operate. Legality of activities, votin and even which side of the road you can drive your vehicle is impacted by policy. It designed by authorities of the respective country through processes based on the type of government that rules. Public policy is arguably the umbrella of all other policies.

Organizational policy: This refer to policy that is made by a specific organization by its stake holders and for internal and external stakeholders. It is the type of policy that aims at deciding the goals and activities of the entire organization. Policies of this sort usually anchor on the co-values of the organization and what purpose it serves. For example Nongovernment organizations(NGOs) that advocates for human rights can develop a policy that makes sure these are respected starting from within the NGOs before  being extended to the field. Such organizations create codes of conduct that are characterized with criticism against discrimination along racial or tribal line, stigma of any kind and even inter office romantic relationships.

Functional policy: companies among other organization are organized into departments which have different functions. These units and divisions necessitates this type of policy. Functional policies are assigned to specific areas in kind of set up.

Specific policy: this type of policy aims to quite self explanatory and straight forward. Be in government or private sector this type of policy is formulated to address a particular issue and usually is temporal. A good example of a phenomena affecting is that of COVID-19 vaccination. These vaccines have received a lot of negative criticism and even resistance such that government had to implement policies when non vaccinated citizens are excluded from certain activities.

The term policy process means suggestion that there is some sort of system that translates policy ideas into actual policy that are implemented and have positive effects. According to Jordan et al 2015 there are five stages of policy process which are problem emergence, agenda setting, consideration of policy option, decision making, implementation and evaluation. According to them view of policy environmental groups must first get particular problem on the agenda for discussion and if possible, consideration by policy makers. Policy makers then select the best course of action based on specialist advice, make the policy then hand it to administrator for implementation. This stage based view emphasizes that policy is a process involving many different parts of government. But in practice policy issues are interconnect, policy makers fumble around for solutions n the context of great uncertainty and many internal and a external constraints. These stage of policy process is based on environmental policy. The Policy Circle can be used in any sector; here it is illustrated for use with problems identified in the health sector, specifically in family planning, reproductive health, safe motherhood, and HIV/AIDS. The Policy Circle can also be used to address or analyze problems that require different levels of policy, including national and local policies, and sectoral and operational policies.

A number of models have been developed to describe policy. Some are linear, while others capture the more complex and circuitous route of policy development. The linear model of policy was developed by Lasswell (1951) and modified by Meier (1991) to include four steps taken in policymaking (Figure 1). Policy practitioners make predictions/prescriptions about issues that need to be addressed through policy, policymakers make a policy choice, the policy is then implemented and has an outcome. This simple framework has no feedback loop or opportunities for the process to move backward as well as forward. To capture the dynamic nature of policymaking, Grindle and Thomas (1991) suggest a more complex framework to describe policy development that includes an agenda phase, a decision phase, and an implementation phase. At each stage, the framework suggests that a decision can be made for or against the policy. For example, an issue can either be put on the policy agenda or not put on the agenda. At the decision phase, the decision can be for or against policy reform. At any of the three stages, a policy either continues to move toward successful implementation or else it is derailed.

The Linear Model of policy process

 

The Linear Model

Variously called the linear, mainstream, common-sense or rational model, this model is the most widely-held view of the way in which policy is made. It outlines policy-making as a problem solving process which is rational, balanced, objective and analytical. In the model, decisions are made in a series of sequential phases, starting with the identification of a problem or issue, and ending with a set of activities to solve or deal with it.

Different models of the policy process

The incrementalist model

Policy makers look at a small number of alternatives for dealing with a problem and tend to choose options that differ only marginally from existing policy. For each alternative, only the most important consequences are considered. There is no optimal policy decision - a good policy is one that all participants agree on rather than what is best to solve a problem. Incremental policy-making is essentially remedial, it focuses on small changes to existing policies rather than dramatic fundamental changes. What is feasible politically is only marginally different from the policies that exist, drastically different policies fall beyond the pale. In this model, policy-making is also serial, you have to keep coming back to problems as mistakes become apparent and are corrected, and new approaches to the issues are developed. The model suggests that major changes occur through a series of small steps, each of which does not fundamentally ‘rock the boat’. The ‘policy process is one of disjointed incrementalism or muddling through (Lindblom 1980).

The mixed-scanning model

This covers the middle ground between the rational (or linear) and incrementalist models (Walt, 1994). It essentially divides decisions into a macro (fundamental) and micro (small) classification. It involves the policy maker in taking a broad view of the field of policy. The rational/ linear model implies an exhaustive consideration of all possible options in detail, and the incrementalist approach suggests looking only at options which from previous experience are known to exist. In contrast a mixed-scanning approach suggests taking a broad view of possible options and looking further into those which require a more in depth examination.

The following are the main stages of policy process in different social sectors.

Agenda-setting

Agenda setting refers to actually getting the “problem” on the formal policy agenda of issues to be addressed by presidents, cabinet members, Parliament, Congress, or ministers of health, finance, education, or other relevant ministries. Stakeholders outside of government can suggest issues to be addressed by policymakers, but government policymakers must become engaged in the process for a problem to be formally addressed through policy. Government policymaking bodies “can only do so much in its available time period, such as the calendar day, the term of office, or the legislative session. The items which make it to the agenda pass through a competitive selection process, and not all problems will be addressed. Inevitably, some will be neglected, which means that some constituency will be denied. Among the potential agenda items are holdovers from the last time period or a reexamination of policies already implemented which may be failing” (Hayes, 2001). At any given time, policymakers are paying serious attention to relatively few of all possible issues or problems facing them as national or subnational policymakers. In decentralized systems, sometimes issues are placed on the agenda of various levels of government simultaneously to coordinate policymaking. For example “reproductive health is on the concurrent legislative list in Nigeria and therefore, the three tiers of government, including the states and local governments, are expected to formulate independent policies to guide their programs and service delivery” (POLICY, 2004).

Altman and Petkus (1994: 42) note that “as problems become salient issues, and as individuals or groups begin to take action, legislators place the problems on the policy agenda.” Starting in the 1950s, it took many years for population issues to reach the policy agenda in many countries; likewise, safe motherhood and HIV have taken time to be accorded space on the policy agenda around the world. But with clear issue framing and strong evidence to substantiate the problem, stakeholders have been able to set the critical issue on the policy agenda. An agenda is a list of issues or problems to which governmental officials and others in the policy community are paying some serious attention at any given time. Agenda setting is about a government recognizing that a problem is a public problem worthy of its attention and not simply an issue affecting only a few a people, or a background "condition" about which it can do very little and so one that should rather be endured. Agenda setting is concerned with the initial processes of issue identification and policy initiation and with the manner in which these processes affect subsequent policy-making activities undertaken by governments. Agenda items differ greatly depending on the nature of the economic and social circumstances in which people live and governments operate (Wu Xun et al.2010). In China for example, the government's top agenda in the first decade of the twenty-first century included food prices, food safety, growing air pollution, and the 2008 Beijing Olympics. In France, on the other hand priorities included the reform of the pension system for public sector employees, the quality of the education system, and immigration.

Agenda setting is sometimes defined as the process by which the demands of various groups in the population are translated into items that governments consider for action. This definition is closely linked with the idea that public policy-making is driven primarily by the actions of nongovernmental actors to which government managers react. Empirical evidence, however has shown that in many instances concerns about certain policy problems are in fact raised by members of government rather than social groups. In either case, however public managers must understand how demands for policy action can arise and are placed on the formal agenda of government. Agenda setting is characterized by three key features. It is a process that:

1. is nonlinear.

2. Is political as well as technical.

3. Takes place within a complex network of state and societal actors.

Main actors in agenda setting

Actors participating in agenda setting include both state and societal actors operating at subnational, national and international levels. Many key actors in the agenda-setting process are state actors, including elected officials as well as appointed administrators. Elected officials include legislators and executive members while appointees include bureaucrats and members of the judiciary. Each has the legal authority to bring items to the attention of government for further action and thus plays a key role in agenda setting activity. The range of societal actors involved in this process is much larger and potentially limitless, since it is sometimes possible for individuals, acting as activists, litigants, or voters, to bring items to the government agenda. However, it is more common for agenda items to emerge from organized "collective" actors, such as interest groups, religious organizations, companies, labor unions, associations, think tanks, or other kinds of policy research organizations. These actors command different kinds of resources, from economic power to knowledge, which give them different levels of ability to influence government thinking and attention on various issues or aspects of issues. Among interest groups, business is generally the most powerful, with an unmatched capacity for affecting public policy through its direct control over investment and, hence, indirectly, over jobs and economic prosperity. Labor too occupies a powerful position among social groups in countries with high unionization rates, though it is typically less powerful than business, on whom it relies for job creation and wages.

 In the scholarly literature on agenda-setting, for example, a useful distinction is often drawn between the systemic or unofficial public agenda and the institutional or formal official agenda which helps to conceptualize policy-making dynamics at the stage of the process. The systemic agenda consist of all issues that are commonly perceived by members of the political community meriting public attention and as involving matters within the legitimate jurisdiction of existing governmental authority (Cobb and Elder 1972). This is essentially a society's agenda for discussion of public problems, such as crime or health care, water quality or wilderness preservation. The formula institutional agenda, on the other hand, consist of only a limited number issues or problems to which attention is devoted by policy elites. Each society has literally hundreds of issues which some citizens find to be matters of concern and would have the government do something about. However, only a small proportion of the problems on the public or systemic agenda are actually taken up by policy actors actively involved in policy development and understanding how and why this movement occurs is key to understanding process dynamics at the front-end of the policy process.

Almost 40 year ago the American political scientists Cobb and Ross developed a model of typical agenda-setting styles based on this insight. In their analysis, they argued that three basic patterns of agenda-setting could be discerned, distinguished by the origins of the issues as well as the resources utilized to facilitate in inclusion on the agenda. In the outside initiation pattern issues arise in nongovernmental groups and are then expanded sufficiently to reach. First, the public (systemic) agenda and finally the formal (institutional) agenda. The mobilization case is quite different and describes decision makers trying to expand an issue from a formal to a public agenda. In this model issues are simply placed on the formal agenda by the government with no necessary preliminary expansion from a publicly recognized grievance. In the third types of agenda-setting inside initiation, influential groups with special access to decision makers initiate a policy and do not necessarily want it to be expanded and contested in public

Policy formulation

The second stage of the policy cycle have also emphasized the importance of specific kinds of actors interacting to develop and refine policy options for government. In policy formulation the relevant policy actors are restricted to those who not only have an opinion on a subject but also have some minimal level of knowledge of the subject area, allow them to comment at least hypothetically on the feasibility of options put forward to resolves policy problems.

The power of the ideas held by these actors and their stability in policy subsystems in particular has been a subject of much attention in studies of policy formulation in recent years. For example, has suggested that ideas change incrementally, when new elements of meaning are added to them resulting in a characteristic process of policy in which similar ideas inform similar policy options over long periods of time. This shifts the focus of the analysis towards the influence of discourses within certain institutional settings as a key factors affecting nature of the kinds of policy alternatives put forward in policy formulation. Also Policy formulation is the part of the process by which proposed actions are articulated, debated, and drafted into language for a law or policy. Written policies and laws go through many drafts before they are final. Wording that is not acceptable to policymakers key to passing laws or policies is revised. For example, a policy in Jamaica to support providers to serve minors (under the age of consent) went through numerous drafts over a period of two years before it was passed in 2003. The final version of the policy contained more references to promoting abstinence than did the first version. International conference declarations and programs of action also go through iterations during formulation. Leading up to the 1994 ICPD in Cairo, the draft Program of Action contained “bracketed” text that required negotiation and policy dialogue among stakeholders from around the world in order for the final document to be ratified. Policy formulation includes setting goals and outcomes of the policy or policies (Isaacs and Irvin, 1991; Health Canada, 2003). The goals and objectives may be general or narrow but should articulate the relevant activities and indicators by which they will be achieved and measured. The goals of a policy could include, for example, the creation of greater employment opportunities, improved health status, or increased access to reproductive health services. Policy outcomes could include ensuring access to ARV treatment for HIV in the workplace or access to emergency obstetric care for pregnant women. Goals and outcomes can be assessed through a number of lenses, including gender and equity considerations.

Policy formulation involves the development of alternatives for possible activities designed to address problems on the government agenda. Policy- makers typically face short-lived windows of opportunity to come up with actionable solutions.

Policy Formulation stands at the planning process. It is a strategic planning process leading to a general concept, usually a Masterplan. Such a masterplan is a political decision. It includes a set of measures aimed at the future developments. A consensus has to be found on which scenario or group of measures out of different scenarios and bundles of measures is to fulfil the intended goals in the best way. This overall concept normally is a legally-binding framework for more detailed plans and concepts for a longer period of time. Policy formulation is most important at higher strategic levels but has to be considered at each level of a planning process.

The differences between the various levels - national, regional, local – appear in the allocation of authorities and competence and in the extent of impacts and effects. Participation and information of all involved parties should be regarded as an important aspect to gain accepted goals and accepted policies. One problem of environmentally sound policies is that the measures to achieve systems heading towards sustainability are in most cases unpopular.

Decision-making

Similar styles have been identified at the decision making stage of the policy process. Many early studies of policy-making in companies, government and organization conducted largely by students of public and business administration. Gowthrop (1971) argued that decision-makers attempt us follow a systematic method for arriving at logical, efficient decisions. They argued that policy-makers achieved superior results when they first established a goal explored alternative strategies for achieving it. Attempted to predict its consequences and the likelihood of each occurring, and then chose the option which maximized potential benefits at least cost or risk (Carly 1980; Cahill and Overman 1990).

This model was “rational” in the sense that it prescribed a standard set of procedures for policy making which were expected to lead in all circumstances to the choice of the most efficient means of achieving policy goals (Jennings 1987; Torgerson 1986). Pure rational models of decision making thought of policy-maker as neutral technicians or manager who identify a problem and then find the most effective or efficient way solving it (Elster 1991). Many of the latest effort to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of public policy decision-making such as the evidence-based policy movement focuses on the application of a systemic evaluative nationality to policy problems.

Policy evaluation

The last stage of the cycle. Policy evaluation was expected to consist of assessing if a policy was achieving stated objectives and, if not what could be done to eliminate impediments to the attainment. However analysts often resorted to concepts such as success or failure to conclude their evaluation. Evaluative process is not so much ultimate success and failure, but that policy actors, the organizations and institutions.

                                                         THE MODEL OF POLICY PROCESS

Sources: Howlett et al 2003

In the past, policy making was concentrated in the hands of policymakers and a few influential people/organizations outside government. Over the past decade, policymaking has increasingly included the participation of a wider range of stakeholders outside of government. Nongovernmental stakeholders participate as through advocacy, representation in government bodies, consultation and policy dialogue with policymakers, and participation on coordination mechanisms (UNFPA, 1999). Family planning, reproductive health, safe motherhood, and HIV/AIDS policymaking includes a broad range of government (including from the central and decentralized levels) and civil society stakeholders who play different roles in the process. Omitting groups of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHAs) from policy formulation concerning ARVs runs the risk of developing an unrealistic, unfeasible policy. Strong evidence of the role of NGOs and civil society came during the preparations for the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) when women’s health advocates and other civil society organizations were instrumental in reshaping the family planning agenda to include reproductive health and rights more broadly. Their participation ensured that the Program of Action (POA) was fundamentally different than POAs at previous international conferences on population and development in which policy deliberations were more the purview of official government delegations (UNFPA, 1999; Ashford and Noble, 1996).

Including civil society groups and ensuring mulitsectoral participation in reproductive health policymaking in Latin America have resulted in agendas that are more oriented to the needs of stakeholders (POLICY Project, 2000). Youth participation has been heralded as a key to developing and implementing policies for youth (UNFPA, 2003). Examples from Nigeria and Jamaica show that youth participation can improve policies and programs (POLICY, 2004a and 2004b). In both countries, multisectoral groups were involved in developing youth policies and strategic plans. In the AIDS policy arena, the GIPA Principle has highlighted the need for greater involvement of people living with HIV/AIDS in policymaking and program implementation (UNAIDS, 1999; UN, 2002). UNAIDS has developed a continuum of participation, which culminates with the involvement of PLHAs in decision making and policymaking (UNAIDS, 1999). PLHA advocates and activists have also played an enormous role over the past few years in making AIDS treatment available in developing countries at an affordable price (AFSC, 2003; TAC, 2003).

Zimbabwe encouraged participation during the development of its HIV/AIDS policy. Progress toward a national HIV/AIDS policy did not formally begin until the creation of a Steering Committee in 1994. The Steering Committee, charged with planning the process and providing leadership, was composed of representatives from a variety of sectors, including universities, the Attorney General’s Office, PLHAs, NGOs, and the National AIDS Control Program. The committee solicited a great deal of input from the public and made significant attempts to widely circulate draft documents, even printing drafts in newspapers to ensure widespread readership. In forums held in seven provincial workshops, more than 4,500 people participated in a discussion of the policy (Stover and Johnston, 1999). In some cases, NGOs actually draft policies for governments and ministries. For example, in Haiti, the Child Health Institute (IHE) drafted the National Strategic HIV/AIDS Plan in December 2001 and submitted it to Haiti’s Ministry of Health for approval (POLICY Project results database, 2003). Allowing NGOs to participate in the drafting of national policies contributes to developing technically sound policies and stakeholder agreement on the problem definitions and solutions. International organizations and bilateral donors that fund family planning, reproductive health, and HIV/AIDS programs are also important stakeholders in policy development and implementation. Donor funds often drive policy agendas. The U.S. government’s 2003 announcement of a presidential initiative to provide US$15 billion in funds for 14–15 countries hit hard by the HIV/AIDS epidemic will likely have an enormous effect on how HIV/AIDS policies are shaped in coming years in those—and other countries (President’s Emergency Plan, 2004).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Grindle, M. and Thomas, J. (1990) .After the Decision: Implementing Policy Reforms in Developing Countries.World Development. Vol. 18 (8).

Torjam S, (2005).Definition and Classification of Policies. The Celedon institute of Social policy .Ottawa Canada.

Jordan A. (2012).  Encyclopia of the Social and Behavioral International Science.

Birkland Thomas (2011). An Introduction to Policy Process. New York. M.E Sharpe.

Wu Xun et al ( 2010). The public Policy Primer Managing the Policy Process. New York. Routledge.

Howlett, M. (1998) .Predictable and Unpredictable Policy Windows: Issue, Institutional and Exogenous Correlates of Canadian Federal.agenda Setting Journal of Political Science 31(3):495-524.

Cobb. R. W. and C. D. Elder (1972) Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Boston.MA: Allyn & Bacon.