Public Policy
One often wonders ‘what the government does’ and ‘why the government does what it does’ and equally importantly ‘what it does not do and why so’. According to Thomas R. Dye “public policy is whatever government chooses to do or not to do”, implying that government's actions and inactions both come into the realm of public policy. There are various types of policies. Regulatory policies govern behaviour and ensure compliance with laws, such as environmental and labour regulations that protect public welfare. Distributive policies allocate resources to various segments of society. Redistributive policies aim to reduce inequalities by reallocating resources. Constituent policies establish the framework for governance and public administration, defining the roles and responsibilities of government institutions. Lastly, allocative policies determine how public funds are spent, influencing critical sectors like education, healthcare, and infrastructure development.
The government's action is needed when there is a problem or a disconnect between the desired state of affairs and the current state of affairs. Problems may emerge either in the public arena or bureaucratic arena.
10. Emergence of problems
There are several ways in which the problems emerge in the public arena:
i. Manifesto of the political party: Each political party lists the issues in its manifesto which it will take up, if it forms the government. These manifestos are aligned to the ideology and policy preferences of the political party, enabling the voters to make their choices. The manifestos are increasingly under scrutiny, made possible by strong media and presence of civil society movement.
ii. Media: It has been a potent tool to highlight the issues in governance for a long time. The emergence of electronic media has only fastened the process of shaping opinions through media. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw have shown the correlation between issues emphasized in the media and the people’s ranking of those issues. Quite often important issues like education and public health have been raised by the media. Now social media has shown the potential to mobilize people at a much faster pace around some cause. States mostly take cautious approach concerning media. However, accountability in the sector has also been an issue of late. Similarly, negative aspects of social media are well known.
iii. Civil society movement: It has gained strength, especially in the last two decades. Civil society organizations are today working in several areas concerning citizens, be it economy, society, polity, environment or culture. Their strength lies in mobilizing people and taking up advocacy work concerning the sector in which they are working. Broad-based organizations have the capacity to generate new ideas and propose new alternatives. They also work as watchdogs for society. In the public governance paradigm, they are partners as well in governance.
iv. Interest groups: These are groups that advocate on behalf of the interests of their constituency membership on matters of public policy. Their primary task is political advocacy. For example, Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry takes up issues concerning its members with the government. They also provide policy input to the government.
v. Problems because of some failure: Market, social or governance failure can also bring problems in the public domain. Vodafone-Idea, farmers’ suicide or crime against women are typical examples of these failures. A government's intervention is guided by several factors depending on the nature of the state and the context of the problem.
Problems in the bureaucratic arena may emerge in following ways:
i. Officials in the field often encounter problems in the line of their duty, which they bring to the notice of the policymakers.
ii. Research studies play an important role in highlighting the problem and proposing the solutions. Often such research studies are commissioned by the ministries concerned, if they are facing any problem. The problem of tribal development was identified through a research study, which suggested the Tribal Sub Plan approach and the programme ran for many decades.
iii. The audit reports have often highlighted the gaps in the government programmes. However, their limitation is that they comment only on the existing programmes.
10.2. Public Policy and Public Interest
Apparently, the governments are supposed to act in public interest, implying that only those problems would be taken up which are in public interest. However, defining ‘public interest’ has been a vexed issue. For example, during the 1970s and 1980s, committing large sums of money to space programmes while millions were below the poverty line became an issue of public interest. Government policies are often criticized for neglecting public interest. Question also arises as whose interest is public interest because neo-classicists argue that public officials pursue their interests. Recent efforts towards promotion of integrity and prevention of corruption are geared to tackle the self-interest of public officials. The other aspect of public interest is- ‘does it mean maximum social gain’. Rawl’s theory of justice has given some direction in this regard.
10.3. Politics and Public Policy
The policies cannot be separated from the politics of the state, bringing the nature of the state to attention. So, a similar problem would be dealt differently by an authoritarian state and a democratic state. The following factors also indicate as to what type of policies could be taken up by the government or what could be the limitations on the intervention, especially in a democratic setup:
• Societal conditions and behavior of the members of the society along with the cultural norms determine the contours of government action. Often the governments are fearful about the response of the people, if the state action appears to be conflicting with the social or cultural values.
• Level of economic development encourages or puts up constraints before the government- whether they get sufficient revenues, can they tax people or goods to increase revenue, or the manufacturers producing goods at competitive prices or protection is needed, etc.
• Recent technological developments like AI, ML or IoT and many others have changed the manner in which the governments functioned and delivered the public services. However, countries as well as regions differ in the level of technological development.
• The quality of public administration is also a determining factor in choosing the course of action. For example, in most of the developing countries, the lack of capacities at the local levels deters the national or the provincial governments from devolving even necessary functions to local level governments.
• It also matters if there is a single party rule or if it is a coalition government. In the case of coalition governments, the political parties forming the government may have to arrive at a common minimum programme, compromising with some issues they would have otherwise preferred to take up.
Ultimately, it is about who gets what, when and how.
10.4. Policy Process
Harold Laswell, who is credited with proposing the study of policy sciences, suggested the creation of knowledge to solve problems in his problem-solving approach. This creation of knowledge deals with public policy process. The policy process is influenced by the social, political, economic, cultural, and other contexts.
The process can be understood through the 5 stages of the policy cycle:
10.4.1. Agenda setting
It is important for the problem to reach the agenda. The public agenda consists of issues that have achieved a high level of public interest and visibility, while the formal agenda lists the topics that decision makers formally give serious consideration to.
Apparently, the groups who could be affected adversely would try to not let the problem reach the agenda stage. Different stakeholders employ various strategies like mobilizing people, use of social media, electronic media, etc., to justify their claims. There is a fierce group competition to set the agenda. The group that successfully describes the problem or is able to articulate its interests better would be the one to define solutions. Groups having access to resources may gain greater support.
There are several levels of the agenda. The largest and the first is ‘Agenda Universe’, which contains all ideas that can be considered, implying that they are politically acceptable. The issues that merit attention advance to the ‘Systemic Agenda’. Cobb and Elder say that “the systemic agenda consists of all issues that are commonly perceived by members of the political community as meriting public attention and as involving matters within the legitimate jurisdiction of existing governmental authority”. The boundaries of the issue or the problem narrow down here and if the issue can be elevated successfully, then it reaches the ‘Institutional Agenda’ level for the serious consideration of authoritative decision makers. Institutional constraints like capacity, time, or resources imply that few issues can reach this level. If the issue at this level can get prioritized over other issues which are also at the institutional agenda level, it reaches the ‘Decision Agenda’ level, meaning that it can be taken to the next stage of policy formulation to solve the problem.
10.4.2. Policy formulation
Once a problem is taken for decision, in this stage, various options are explored to solve the problem. Rationality demands that as many options are explored as possible. Thereafter, each such option is evaluated. There are several techniques to do the same, like cost benefit analysis, marginal analysis and many others. However in reality, those who are entrusted with the responsibility of exploring options may face certain constraints, like limited information, lack of domain knowledge, time available, resource availability etc. leading to what Herbert Simon called ‘bounded rationality’. Policy formulation has gained huge sophistication over the years. A lot of methods and tools have been developed for supporting the activities relating to policy formulation. Some of which are mentioned below:
a. Stakeholders' engagement: Each stakeholder has a stake in the policy process. Either he /she is positively impacted or negatively. As public policy is about negotiations, compromises and finding equilibrium, their inclusion ensures that every aspect of the problem is taken care of. Their exclusion may lead to identifying or defining the problem incorrectly / appropriately, which would be detrimental- the outcomes could lead to solutions which would not solve the problem. Their engagement also gives them a sense of ownership over the process, leading to more effective implementation at a later stage. In fact, their engagement is crucial at every stage of the policy cycle.
At the same time, the policymakers are reluctant to engage all stakeholders all the time, as in their opinion some of them are noisy, forgetting that their participation in the process also brings in transparency in the whole mechanism. This is a typical characteristic in developing societies especially.
b. Defining the problem: Solutions could solve a problem if the problem is correctly defined. Problems are no longer ‘simple’, they are mostly ‘complex’ and increasingly becoming ‘wicked’ as issues are getting more interconnected. For example, pandemic management is a wicked problem. Solution (shutdown to prevent human to human contact) led to another problem (loss of livelihood, effectively affecting people at the bottom of the pyramid). It is an iterative process. Several techniques have been developed by the policy scientists in this regard.
B. Guy Peters identified 7 attributes to understanding policy problems which could help in enhancing the quality of policy design. The core attributes consist of (i) solubility, (ii) complexity (political, programmatic), (iii) scale (of the problem) and attributes directly tied to instruments consist of (iv) divisibility (of solutions), monitorization, scope and interdependence.
c. Evidence based policymaking
Evidence helps make well informed decisions about policies by putting the best available evidence from research at the heart of policy development and implementation. It is not that evidence was not being used at all earlier in the policymaking. Justification for any policy was attributed to some evidence. However, now the whole process has evolved scientifically. In finding evidence, it advocates a more rational, rigorous and systematic approach. Evidence helps us explain.:
a. Understand the policy environment and how it is changing,
b. Appraise the likely effects of policy changes so we can choose between different policy options and subsequently assess their impacts, and
c. Demonstrate the links between strategic direction, intended outcomes and policy objectives.
The governments, world over, have started investing in collecting and processing data at a large scale. Objectivity in generating evidence requires ensuring quality of data- i.e. methods of collecting data and storing it, robust data analytics and adequate use in decision making.
Since the private sector is also engaged in providing many public services, a lot of data is being generated in the private sector, which is collecting and managing that data. One challenge is how this data is shared between the public and private and who will bear the cost of the data management. Another challenge in the government sector is the capacity to use the data which is available.
Evidence is also generated by way of conducting research to assess the feasibility of a course of action. For example, randomized controlled trial is a good method of generating such evidence. Abhijeet Banerjee, the Nobel laureate, has conducted experiments in education to find feasible solutions for enhancing efficiency in the Education sector.
This stage ends with the formulation of multiple alternatives to solve the problem.
10.4.3. Policy adoption
In a democratic setup, it is the elected representatives who make the choice. Authoritative allocation of resources for policy choices is made by the government at the cabinet level or in the legislature. Policy choices are contingent to values- societal or ideological. Therefore, it is important that the views of the members of other political parties are also taken into account. The discussions may enrich the policy content. How values play an important role in decision making can be understood from the example of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. The proposal was prepared by the department. Primary education had been neglected for quite a long time till then. However, the Ministry of Finance was reluctant to fund the mission due to the paucity of it. It was finally approved by the cabinet keeping in mind the future of the children, who are the future of the nation.
The legislature normally lays down the procedure for deliberations and decision making on a policy matter. Often it has been noticed that the governments do not have the appetite for discussion on policy issues in the legislature. Such governments rush the bills or proposals in the legislature or adopt other means to get the policies approved. The legislature also has a responsibility to hold the executive accountable in the implementation of the policy.
10.4.4. Policy implementation
Implementation has often been blamed for policy failures. In developing societies especially, the focus is on implementation and there is less critique of the policy design. However, there are factors which impact policy implementation.
i. Principal-agent problems often lead to divergent courses of action. Those who are implementing the policy at the field level, if they feel that the policy is detrimental to their interests, to that extent there could be divergence. Similarly, these stakeholders, who could not get their concerns addressed during the formulation stage, would try to stop or obstruct the implementation. This problem is comparatively felt more in the developing societies or less mature democracies.
ii. Implementation also suffers if the administrative machinery responsible for it does not have the capacity to do the same. Evaluation report of Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission has categorically mentioned that the urban local bodies did not have the capacity to implement this ambitious Mission.
iii. Implementation is impacted by the attitude and behaviour of the target recipients of the programme as well. Often, due to lack of participatory approaches adopted by the administration, it is not able to get the engagement of the community. The beneficiaries remain detached from the implementation and do not develop a sense of ownership over the program.
iv. There could be conflict in the policy values and the societal values. Which could lead to unsuccessful implementation. There are numerous examples where the implementation was not successful because the behavioral change that was expected from the beneficiaries did not materialize. Open defecation free component of Swachh Bharat Mission suffered from the behavioral tendencies of the beneficiaries in some cases.
v. Well-intentioned policies have failed because of bad communication. Poor communication fosters distrust in the government. Democratic values demand transparency in the activities of the government. Government communication has been overlooked and underused as a strategic tool for policy delivery. Advancements in technology in modes of communication and the communication strategy play a significant role in the success or failure of the policy. Studies have shown positive influence of prior consultation and policy training on policy understanding. Policy communication can be used to:
a. Inform: explaining and supporting decisions; defending values and promoting responsible behaviours; facilitating dialogue between institutions and citizens.
b. Persuade: Building consensus around the policy among people and the functionaries
c. Engage: instilling sense of ownership in the community helps in sustaining the consensus and avoiding confrontation throughout the policy cycle.
It is necessary to build an institutional culture of transparency. Government communication requires a high level of professionalism and constant development. Many governments lack infrastructure needed for effective communication. At the same time, it needs to be ensured that the communication unit does not become a political propaganda mouthpiece. Supporting government communication capacity as ‘information development’ may be a useful approach.
10.5. Evaluation
In the evaluation stage policy outcomes and impacts are assessed identifying successes and areas for improvement. Evaluation helps us to understand as to what extent the policy objectives have been achieved, whether the policy needs to be extended or it can be stopped, and whether it should be modified and continued.
The biggest issue in evaluation is who does the evaluation. Whether it is being done by an outside agency or third party or it is being done by someone from within the department. A third-party evaluation has more likelihood of being objective. The objectivity would also depend on the funding agency for the evaluation. Again, if it is the same, whose policy or programme is being evaluated then it is problematic. The capability of the agency doing the evaluation is an equally important aspect. The selection of the agency has to be very thoughtful.
10.6. Public Policy Analysis
Public policy analysis enables understanding of how the policies are formulated, how they are implemented, what strategies are adopted by various stakeholders, how the policies are implemented and how to evaluate them.
10.6.1 Institutional Model
The Institutional Approach to policy analysis highlights the critical role that governmental structures and institutions play in shaping public policy within a democratic framework. In this model, public policies derive their legal authority and universality from these institutions, which enforce compliance and impose sanctions when necessary. The effectiveness of policies often depends on how well institutions facilitate or hinder access to power for various interest groups. This approach explores the relationship between institutional arrangements and policy outcomes, recognizing that certain structures may favour specific interests while marginalizing others. A notable example is the Right to Information Act (RTI), enacted in 2005 to promote transparency and accountability in governance. The RTI Act empowers citizens to request information from public authorities, and its success can be largely attributed to an institutional framework that encouraged citizen engagement and advocacy. Civil society organizations played a vital role in championing this legislation, while the bureaucratic structures established to process RTI requests significantly influenced its implementation.
10.6.2 Incremental Model
The Incremental Model of public policy, often associated with Charles Lindblom, offers a practical approach to decision-making in governance. Unlike the traditional rational model, which assumes that policymakers can clearly define goals and evaluate all possible alternatives, the Incremental Model recognizes the constraints of limited time, incomplete information, and political pressures. This model emphasizes making small, gradual changes to existing policies rather than implementing sweeping reforms. Policymakers typically build upon established frameworks, making adjustments based on past experiences and familiar options. This approach allows for flexibility and adaptability, enabling policymakers to respond effectively to changing circumstances and stakeholder feedback. A relevant example is the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which was initially designed to provide at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment to every rural household. Over the years, MGNREGA has undergone numerous incremental adjustments, including modifications to wage rates, the expansion of eligible work types, and improvements in grievance redressal mechanisms. These changes were made through ongoing discussions and evaluations, allowing policymakers to learn from the program's implementation and adapt to the evolving needs of rural populations.
10.6.3 Systems Model
The Systems Model for Policy Analysis, introduced by David Easton, conceptualizes the policy-making process as a transformation of societal inputs into public policies. This model views the political system as a mechanism that authoritatively allocates values, where inputs consist of demands from individuals and groups seeking change, along with supports that include the rules and customs sustaining the political community. Key actors and institutions involved in policy-making, such as the chief executive, legislators, judges, and bureaucrats, play a crucial role in converting societal inputs into outputs authoritative policy decisions. This cyclical process allows for policies to be implemented, evaluated, and adjusted based on feedback from the environment.
10.6.4 Rational Policy-Making Model
The Rational Policy-Making Model has become a key framework in public policy analysis, particularly since World War II. It is based on the concepts of economic rationality, which emphasizes self-interested decision-making, and bureaucratic rationality, which focuses on systematic processes. Central to this model is the idea of the "economic man," who seeks to maximize benefits while minimizing costs. Rational policy-making involves selecting the best option among alternatives based on comprehensive analysis. According to Thomas Dye, a policy is rational when its benefits exceed its costs, considering not only monetary values but also social and political factors. For effective rational policy-making, policymakers must understand societal values, be aware of all alternatives, assess consequences, and accurately calculate cost-benefit ratios.
10.6.5 Elite Model
The Elite Model of the policy process asserts that a small group of powerful individuals, or elites, predominantly shapes public policy, often sidelining the broader population. This theory posits that power is concentrated among those who share similar values, wealth, and education, while the masses remain largely apathetic and uninformed about critical policy issues. Consequently, policy decisions tend to flow downward from these elites, with public officials primarily responsible for implementing their directives. Key propositions of the Elite Model include the notion that public policy reflects elite preferences rather than the demands of the masses, and that elites have a greater influence on shaping public opinion than the masses do on elite perspectives. While the model provides valuable insights into the dynamics of power in policy-making, it also faces criticism for portraying the masses as passive and largely uninvolved in the decision-making process. For instance, industrialists often leverage their resources and networks to shape policies that favour their interests, impacting sectors like trade, taxation, and industrial regulation. Although these reforms aim to stimulate growth and attract foreign investment, they frequently overlook the needs and voices of the general population, resulting in uneven benefits and highlighting the disconnect between elite-driven policies and the realities faced by the masses.
10.6.6 Public Choice Model
The Public Choice Model of public policy applies economic principles to the political decision-making process, emphasizing that individuals in politics, like those in markets, are primarily motivated by self-interest. Emerging in the early 1960s, this model challenges the traditional view that policymakers act solely for the public good. Instead, it posits that politicians and bureaucrats seek to maximize their own objectives, such as winning elections or expanding their influence. Key contributors to this theory, including Gordon Tullock, Anthony Downs, and William Niskanen, argue that political actors engage in rational decision-making, often manipulating economic conditions to create favourable pre-election narratives.
10.6.7 Group Theory Model
The Group Theory Model of public policy emphasizes the influence of organized interest groups in shaping political outcomes. These groups, representing various interests such as environmental protection, business, or social justice, actively engage in advocacy and lobbying to sway policymakers. They often compete for attention and resources but may also collaborate through coalitions to amplify their impact. In this model, the concept of pluralism is key, suggesting that multiple groups can coexist and compete for influence, leading to a more democratic policy-making process. However, it also raises concerns about unequal representation, as well-resourced groups may overshadow less organized interests.
10.6.8 Game Theory Model
Game theory in public policy examines how various stakeholders make strategic decisions that affect collective outcomes. It highlights the interdependence of choices, where the actions of one player influence the decisions of others. The game theory model serves as a framework for understanding strategic interactions among rational agents, where the outcomes depend on the choices made by all players involved. It emphasizes the importance of anticipating the actions of others and the interdependencies that exist in decision-making processes.
10.6.9 Garbage Can Model
The Garbage Can Model of public policy-making offers a framework that highlights the inherent randomness and complexity of decision-making processes. In this model, decision-making resembles a chaotic mix where issues are tossed into a "garbage can" of choices. Participants in the process may lack clear goals or coherent solutions, resulting in decisions that are influenced more by the availability of options than by a thorough analysis of the problems at hand. Consequently, policies may not effectively address the issues they are meant to solve; instead, they often arise from a random alignment of circumstances and interests.
Governance & Polity • 1 month ago
Leave a comment
More articles from Governance & Polity
