Abstract

Public policy is a complex process that consists of a series of decisions that are made by stakeholders and the public. The objective of this Chapter is to provide a brief overview of the current state of the art of public policy. This review is aimed at highlighting the current status of the literature in public policy, focusing on the recent developments in the field of policy analysis. The Chapter focuses on the key issues that need to be addressed in policy analysis, i.e., how to formulate policies, how the policies are implemented, and how to evaluate them. The Chapter discusses the current literature on public policy-making and the role of government structures and institutions in shaping public policy within a democratic framework.

Keywords: Complex, Stakeholders, Aimed, Focusing, Analysis, Implement, Evaluate, Formulate, Evaluate 

Introduction

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 states that “public policy is whatever the government chooses to do or not to do,” implying that the government’s actions and inaction both come into the realm of public policy. Various types of policies exist. 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. Finally, allocative policies determine how public funds are spent, influencing critical sectors such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure development. Government action is needed when there is a problem or a disconnect between the desired and current state of affairs. Problems may emerge in the public or bureaucratic arena. 

Emergence Of Problems 

There are several ways in which problems emerge in the public arena: 

i. Manifesto of the political party: Each political party lists the issues in its manifesto that it will take up if it forms the government. These manifestos are aligned with the ideology and policy preferences of the political party, enabling voters to make their own choices. The manifestos are increasingly under scrutiny, made possible by strong media and the presence of the civil society movement. 

ii. Media: It has been a potent tool to highlight governance issues for a long time. The emergence of electronic media has only fastened the process of shaping opinions through the media. Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw have shown the correlation between issues emphasised in the media and the people’s ranking of those issues. The media frequently raises important issues such as education and public health. Social media has shown the potential to mobilise people at a much faster pace around certain causes. States mostly take a cautious approach concerning the media. However, accountability in the sector has also been an issue of late. Similarly, the negative aspects of social media are well known. 

iii. The civil society movement: It has gained strength, especially in the last 2 decades. Civil society organisations are today working in several areas concerning citizens, be it the economy, society, polity, environment, or culture. Their strength lies in mobilising people and undertaking advocacy work concerning the sector in which they are working. Broad-based organisations have the capacity to generate new ideas and propose new alternatives. They also serve as watchdogs for society. In the public governance paradigm, they are also partners 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, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) 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 failures can also bring problems in the public domain. Examples of these failures include Vodafone Idea, farmers’ suicide, and crime against women. A government’s intervention is guided by several factors depending on the state’s nature and the problem’s context. 

Problems in the bureaucratic arena may emerge in the following ways: 

i. Officials in the field often encounter problems in the line of their duty, which they bring to the notice of policymakers. 

ii. Research plays an important role in highlighting the problem and proposing solutions. Such research studies are often commissioned by the concerned ministries if they face 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. Audit reports have often highlighted the gaps in the government programmes. However, their limitation is that they comment only on existing programmes. 

Public Policy and Public Interest 

Apparently, governments are supposed to act in the public interest, implying that only those problems that are in the public interest would be taken up. 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 criticised for neglecting the public interest. The question also arises as to which interest is public interest because neo-classicists argue that public officials pursue their own interests. Recent efforts to promote integrity and prevent corruption are geared to tackle the self-interest of public officials. The other aspect of public interest is- ‘does it mean maximum social gain. Rawls’s theory of justice has provided some direction in this regard. 

Politics and Public Policy 

Policies cannot be separated from the politics of the state, bringing the state’s nature to the public’s attention. Thus, a similar problem would be dealt with differently by an authoritarian state and a democratic state. The following factors also indicate 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 behaviour of the members of the society, along with cultural norms, determine the contours of government action. Often, governments are fearful about the response of the people if the state action appears to conflict with social or cultural values. 

• The level of economic development encourages or puts up constraints before the government, such as whether they get sufficient revenues, they can tax people or goods to increase revenue, or the manufacturers producing goods at competitive prices or protection is needed. 

• Recent technological developments, such as AI, ML, and IoT, have changed the manner in which governments function and deliver public services. However, countries and regions differ in the level of technological development. 

• The quality of public administration is also a determining factor in choosing a course of action. For example, in most developing countries, the lack of capacities at the local level deters national or provincial governments from devolving even necessary functions to local governments. 

• It also matters whether there is a single party or a coalition. 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. 

Policy Process 

Harold Laswell, credited with proposing the study of policy sciences, suggested the creation of knowledge to solve problems in his problem-solving approach. This knowledge creation deals with the public policy process. The policy process is influenced by social, political, economic, cultural, and other contexts. 

The process can be understood through the 5 stages of the policy cycle: 

1. Agenda setting 

It is important for the problem to be addressed. 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 consider. 

Apparently, the groups that could be adversely affected would try not to let the problem reach the agenda stage. Different stakeholders employ various strategies like mobilising people, use of social media, electronic media, etc., to justify their claims. There is fierce group competition to set the agenda. The group that successfully describes the problem or can articulate its interests better would be the one to define solutions. Groups with 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. Issues that merit attention advance to the ‘Systemic Agenda’. Cobb and Elder stated 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 are narrowed here, and if the issue can be successfully elevated, then it reaches the ‘Institutional Agenda” level for the serious consideration of authoritative decision makers. Institutional constraints, such as capacity, time, or resources, imply that few issues can reach this level. If the issue at this level can get prioritised over other issues that 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. 

2. Policy formulation 

Once a problem is taken for decision, various options are explored to solve the problem. Rationality demands that as many options as possible be explored. Thereafter, each option is evaluated. There are several techniques to do the same, such as cost–benefit analysis and marginal analysis. However, in reality, those who are entrusted with the responsibility of exploring options may face certain constraints, such as limited information, lack of domain knowledge, time available, and resource availability, leading to what Simon called ‘bounded rationality’. Policy formulation has gained considerable sophistication over the years. Many methods and tools have been developed to support activities related to policy formulation. Some of which are mentioned below: 

a. Stakeholder engagement: Each stakeholder has a stake in the policy process. Either he/she is positively or negatively impacted. 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 incorrectly identifying or appropriately defining the problem, which would be detrimental. The outcomes could lead to solutions that do 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. 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 transparency to the whole mechanism. This is a typical characteristic of developing societies. 

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 become more interconnected. For example, pandemic management is a serious 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 policy scientists have developed several techniques in this regard. 

B. Guy Peters identified 7 attributes to understanding policy problems that 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 (iv) divisibility (of solutions), monitorization, scope, and interdependence. 

c. Evidence-based policymaking 

By putting the best available evidence from research at the heart of policy development and implementation, evidence helps make well-informed decisions about policies. It is not that evidence was not being used at all earlier in policymaking. Justification for any policy was attributed to some evidence. However, the whole process has now evolved scientifically. It advocates a more rational, rigorous, and systematic approach in finding evidence. Evidence helps us explain: 

a. Understand the policy environment and how it is changing. 

b. Appraise the likely effects of policy changes to choose between different policy options and subsequently assess their impacts. 

c. The links between strategic direction, intended outcomes, and policy objectives are demonstrated. 

Governments worldwide have started investing in collecting and processing data at a large scale. Objectivity in generating evidence requires ensuring data quality, i.e., methods of collecting and storing data, robust data analytics, and adequate use in decision-making. 

Since the private sector is also engaged in providing many public services, the private sector is collecting and managing a lot of data. One challenge is how these data are shared between the public and private sectors, and who will bear the cost of data management. Another challenge in the government sector is the capacity to use available data. 

Evidence is also generated by researching to assess the feasibility of a course of action. For example, a randomised controlled trial is a good method for generating such evidence. The Nobel laureate, Abhijeet Banerjee, has conducted experiments in education to find feasible solutions for enhancing efficiency in the education sector. 

This stage ends with the formulation of multiple solutions to the problem. 

3. Policy adoption 

In a democratic setup, the elected representatives make the choice. The government makes the authoritative allocation of resources for policy choices at the cabinet level or in the legislature. Policy choices are contingent on societal or ideological values. Therefore, the views of the members of other political parties must also be taken into account. Discussions may enrich the policy content. How values play an important role in decision-making can be understood from Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan’s example. The proposal was prepared by the department. Primary education had been neglected for quite a long time. However, the Ministry of Finance was reluctant to fund the mission due to its paucity. It was finally approved by the cabinet, keeping in mind the children’s future, who are the future of the nation. 

The legislature normally lays down the procedure for deliberations and decision-making on a policy matter. Often, governments do not have the appetite for discussion on policy issues in the legislature. Such governments rush the bills or proposals through the legislature or adopt other means to get the policies approved. The legislature also has a responsibility to hold the executive accountable in implementing the policy. 

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 policy design. However, some factors 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, could experience 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 felt more in developing societies or less mature democracies. 

ii. Implementation also suffers if the responsible administrative machinery does not have the capacity to do the same. The evaluation report of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission categorically mentioned that the local urban bodies did not have the capacity to implement this ambitious mission. 

iii. Implementation is also impacted by the attitude and behaviour of the target recipients of the programme as well. Often, due to the lack of participatory approaches adopted by the administration, the community is not engaged. Beneficiaries remain detached from the implementation and do not develop a sense of ownership over the programme. 

iv. There could be a conflict between the policy values and the societal values. This could lead to unsuccessful implementation. There are numerous examples where the implementation was unsuccessful because the behavioural change expected from the beneficiaries did not materialise. The open defecation-free component of the Swachh Bharat Mission suffered from the behavioural tendencies of the beneficiaries in some cases. 

v. Well-intentioned policies have failed because of poor communication. Poor communication fosters distrust in the government. Democratic values demand transparency in government activities. Government communication has been overlooked and underused as a strategic tool for policy delivery. Advancements in communication technology and communication strategy play a significant role in policy success or failure. Studies have shown that prior consultation and policy training positively influence 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. Persuasion: Building consensus around the policy among the people and the functionaries. 

c. Engage: Instilling a sense of community ownership helps sustain consensus and avoid confrontation throughout the policy cycle. 

Building an institutional culture of transparency is necessary. Government communication requires a high level of professionalism and constant development. Many governments lack the infrastructure needed for effective communication. Simultaneously, it must 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. 

5. Evaluation 

In the evaluation stage, policy outcomes and impacts are assessed to identify successes and areas for improvement. Evaluation helps us understand the extent to which the policy objectives have been achieved, whether the policy needs to be extended or stopped, and whether it should be modified and continued. 

The biggest issue in evaluation is who performs the evaluation. Whether it is being done by an outside agency, or third-party or by someone from within the department. A third-party evaluation has a higher likelihood of being objective. The objectivity would also depend on the evaluation funding agency. Again, if it is the same, whose policy or programme is being evaluated, then it is problematic. The capability of the agency performing the evaluation is an equally important aspect. The agency selection must be very thoughtful. 

Public Policy Analysis 

Public policy analysis enables an understanding of how policies are formulated and implemented, what strategies are adopted by various stakeholders, how policies are implemented, and how to evaluate them. 

1. Institutional Model 

The institutional approach to policy analysis highlights the critical role of governmental structures and institutions in shaping public policy within a democratic framework. In this model, the legal authority and universality of public policies are derived from these institutions, which enforce compliance and impose sanctions when necessary. The effectiveness of policies often depends on how well institutions facilitate or hinder various interest groups’ access to power. This approach explores the relationship between institutional arrangements and policy outcomes, recognising that certain structures may favour specific interests while marginalising others. The Right to Information Act (RTI), enacted in 2005 to promote transparency and accountability in governance, is a notable example. The RTI Act empowers citizens to request information from public authorities, and its success can be largely attributed to an institutional framework that encourages citizen engagement and advocacy. Civil society organisations played a vital role in championing this legislation, while the bureaucratic structures established to process RTI requests significantly influenced its implementation. 

2. Incremental Model 

The Incremental Model of Public Policy, often associated with Charles Lindblom, offers a practical approach to governance decision-making. Unlike the traditional rational model, which assumes that policymakers can clearly define goals and evaluate all possible alternatives, the Incremental Model recognises the constraints of limited time, incomplete information, and political pressures. This model emphasises making small, gradual changes to existing policies rather than implementing sweeping reforms. Policymakers typically build upon established frameworks and make adjustments based on past experiences and familiar options. This approach allows for flexibility and adaptability, enabling policymakers to respond effectively to changing circumstances and feedback from stakeholders. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which was initially designed to provide every rural household with at least 100 days of guaranteed wage employment, is a relevant example. Over the years, MGNREGA has undergone numerous incremental adjustments, including wage rate modifications, the expansion of eligible work types, and grievance redressal mechanisms. These changes were made through ongoing discussions and evaluations, allowing policymakers to learn from the programme's implementation and adapt to the evolving needs of rural populations. 

3. Systems Model 

The Systems Model for Policy Analysis, introduced by David Easton, conceptualises 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 policies to be implemented, evaluated, and adjusted based on environmental feedback.  

4. Rational policy-making model 

The Rational Policy-Making Model has become a key framework in public policy analysis since World War II. It is based on economic rationality, which emphasises 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 maximise benefits while minimising costs. Rational policy-making involves selecting the best option among alternatives based on a 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.  

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. The 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 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 such as trade, taxation, and industrial regulation. Although these reforms aim to stimulate growth and attract foreign investment, they frequently overlook the general population’s needs and voices, resulting in uneven benefits and highlighting the disconnect between elite-driven policies and the masses’ realities. 

6. The public choice model 

The Public Choice Model applies economic principles to the political decision-making process, emphasising those 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 solely act for the public good. Instead, politicians and bureaucrats seek to maximise 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.  

7. Group Theory Model 

The group theory model of public policy emphasises the influence of IGs in shaping political outcomes. These groups represent various interests, such as environmental protection, business, or social justice, and actively engage in advocacy and lobbying to influence policymakers. They often compete for attention and resources but may also collaborate through coalitions to amplify their impact. The concept of pluralism is key in this model, 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 organised interests.  

8. The game theory model 

In public policy, game theory examines how various stakeholders make strategic decisions that affect collective outcomes. It highlights the interdependence of choices, where one player’s actions 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 involved players. It emphasises the importance of anticipating others’ actions and the interdependencies in decision-making processes.  

9. The 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 "dustbin" of choices. Participants in the process may lack clear goals or coherent solutions, resulting in decisions 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.