Public Policy

Public policy is a frequently used term in our daily lives. We often read in the newspaper
about public health policy, education policy, environmental policy, agricultural policy,
industrial policy, and so on. Public policies are primarily framed by the government to satisfy
public needs and demands. They are the means by which, ends of a collective community
are served. Without policy, the government and administration are rudderless. Successful
policies make for successful government and administration and hence there is a saying that
when the policy fails, the government fails. This chapter is divided into two sections. The first
section deals with the theoretical dimensions of public policy that is concept, relevance,
types, models, and approaches. The second section deals with the functional dimensions of
public policy, namely, formulation, implementation, and evaluation process.

Theoretical Dimensions: The Context

Public policy is a relatively new subfield in political science. Its development as an area of
study emerged out of the recognition that traditional analysis of government decisions were
incomplete descriptions of political activities. As the relationships between society and its
various public institutions became more complex and more interdependent, the need
developed for more comprehensive assessments of what governments do—how and why
they pursue some policy alternatives over others (Gerston 1974: 3). Focus on the public
policy process has developed with the emergence of modern society and industrialization.
During the nineteenth century, representative governments began to evolve in some parts of
the world. With increased political participation by larger portions of the public, government
decisions assumed greater importance and legitimacy. Clashing values with respect to
social, economic, and political questions have profound implications for politics and
government. With these changes, governments began to focus on the problems of their
citizens (Gerston 1974: 4). Contemporary public policy and policy analysis has particularly
an American and twentieth-century flavour. It was in America where initiatives towards a
more unified approach to the study of public problems and policy really began. The work by
Harold Lasswell, Psychopathology and Politics (1930) and The Analysis of Political
Behavior (1948), which culminated in the publication of Lasswell’s essay titled ‘The Policy
Orientation’, The Policy Sciences, co-edited with Daniel Lerner is worth a mention (Sapru
2010: 20). Harold Lasswell is the man behind the initiation of the movement on public policy.
In the late 1960s, as Edward S. Quade notes, a number of converging factors, such as war,
poverty, crime, race relations, and pollution could be credited for producing great interest in
policy sciences (Quade 1970: 1). In recent times, the study of public policy has evolved into
what is virtually a new branch of social sciences, the so-called policy sciences.

What Is Public Policy?

Before coming to the term public policy, it would be fruitful to understand its two
components—‘public’ and ‘policy’. As we know, public administration emerged as an
instrument of the state to serve ‘public’ interest rather than ‘private’ interest. In this sense
‘public’ consists of all the people in general having something in common rather than few
individuals having their personal interests. In political life, the government is the main vehicle
to serve the needs and demands of the ‘public’. The term ‘policy’ refers to overall
programmes of action towards a given goal. Robert Presthus defines policy as ‘a choice
made by an individual or group of individuals that explains; justifies, guides, or outlines a
certain course of action’ (Presthus 1975: 14). Thus, policy can be broadly defined as a
proposed course of action of an individual, a group; an institution or government, to realize a
specific objective or purpose; within a given environment. As an approach to understanding
political change, public policy has almost as many definitions as there are policy issues. Let
us consider a few definitions to get a better understanding of the concept. Thomas R. Dye
states that ‘public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do’ (Peters 1996:
4). This definition includes all actions and inactions of the government as public policy.
Seeking to extend linkage, B. Guy Peters adds that public policy is the ‘sum of government
activities, whether acting directly or through agents, as it has an influence on the lives of
citizens’. James E. Anderson defines public policy as ‘a purposive course of action followed
by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern’ (Anderson 1975:
3). This concept of policy focuses attention on what is actually done as against what is
proposed or intended by the government and public officials and it differentiates a policy
from a decision, which is a choice among competing alternatives. Larry N. Gerston seeks a
definition that responds to the actions and exchanges of both people and governments in a
dynamic public policy as the combination of basic decisions, commitments, and actions
made by those who hold or affect government positions of authority’ (Gerston 1974: 7).
Yehezkel Dror defines public–policymaking as a ‘dynamic process which decides major
guidelines for action directed at the future, mainly by governmental organs. These guidelines
(policies) formally aim at achieving what is in the public interest by the best possible means’
(Dror 1974: 12). Public policies are those policies developed by governmental bodies and
officials, though non-governmental actors and factors may, of course, influence policy
development. The special characteristics of public policies stem from the fact that they are
formulated by what David Easton has called the ‘authorities’ in a political system, ‘elders,
chiefs, executives, legislators, judges, administrators, counselors, monarchs, and the like’.
These are, he says, the persons who ‘engage in the daily affairs of a political system’ are
recognized by most members of the system as having responsibility for these matters’, and
take actions that are ‘accepted as binding by most of the members so long as they act within
the limits of their roles’ (Easton 1965: 212). On the basis of the above definitions of different
scholars, we can spell out some of the implications of the concept of public policy. First,
public policy is concerned with the purpose or goal-oriented action rather than random
behaviour. Second, public policy is a course of action adopted and pursued by governments
to serve public interest. Third, public policy is what governments actually do and what
subsequently happens, rather than what they intend to do. Fourth, public policy may be
either positive or negative in form. Positively, it may involve some form of government action
to affect a particular problem, negatively, it involves a decision by government officials not to
take action, to do nothing, on some matter on which governmental involvement is sought.
Lastly, public policy has a legal and authoritative base. Members of a society accept it is
legitimate to pay taxes, obey traffic rules and pollution control norms because of their legal
binding and coercive power.

Significance of Public Policy

Public policy is a significant component of any political system. It is primarily concerned with
the public and their problems. The role of a public policy is to shape the society for its
betterment. W. Parsons, while narrating the role of public policy says ‘the wider purposes of
public policy is involving enlightenment, the fuller development of individuals in society and
the development of consensus, social awareness and legitimacy, rather than simply the
delivery of goods and services’. Public policies, thus, involve improving the democratic and
political capacities of the people, and not simply the efficiency and effectiveness of the
delivery of services. This also implies that public policy has a participatory and democratic
character. Public policy also has a developmental role. Well-planned policies help in the
socioeconomic development of a nation. After Independence, India formulated a number of
policies aimed at socioeconomic transformation. A Planning Commission was set up and
five-year plans were formulated. Policies regarding agricultural development, industrial
growth, poverty eradication, rural development, and so on, were also framed. Today, we can
see the positive results of these policies. Public policies also helped India in its
nation-building task. India could defend itself not only from external aggression but also
succeed in keeping divergent groups, caste, linguistic, and religious sects united. Thus,
since Independence, public policies in India have helped in achieving socioeconomic
development and maintaining national unity and integrity. As far as the significance of public
policy to political science is concerned, Thomas R. Dye gives three reasons for the same—
scientific, professional, and political purposes. First of all, public policy can be studied in
order to gain greater knowledge about its origin, the processes by which it is developed, and
its consequences forsociety.This, in turn, will increase our understanding of the political
system and society in general. Public policy has professional utility also. An understanding of
the causes and consequences of public policy permits us to apply social science knowledge
to the solution of practical problems. Factual knowledge is a prerequisite to prescribing for
the ills of society. If certain end values are desired, then the question of what politics would
best implement these ends is a factual question requiring scientific study. In other words,
policy studies can produce professional advice. Finally, public policy has a political utility. It
ensures that the nation adopts the right policies to achieve the right goals. It is frequently
argued that political science cannot be silent or impotent in the face of great social and
political crises, and that political scientists have a moral obligation to advance specific public
policies. This task is accomplished by the politicians with the knowledge of public policies.
Public policy has assumed considerable importance in response to the increasing complexity
of society. It helps in explaining the causes and consequences of government activity. Public
policies not only help us to understand the social ills but also provide devices and
mechanisms for moving a social and economic system from the past to the future.

Types of Public Policy

In a political system, a government performs a number of activities. It regulates conflicts

within society, it organizes society to carry on conflict with other societies, it distributes a
great variety of symbolic rewards and material services to the members of the society, and
extracts money from society in the form of taxes. Theodore Lowi (1964) suggests that
policies may be regulatory, distributive, and redistributive in nature and each type of policy is
associated with a particular political process. Regulatory policies are concerned with
regulation and control of individual conduct by coercive techniques. These policies deal with
the regulation of trade, quality of education, safety measures, and so on. This type of
regulation is conducted by autonomous institutions that work on behalf of the government. In
India, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India
(TRAI), the Bureau of Indian Standards, and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) are examples of
regulatory agencies. Distributive policies grant goods and services to specific groups of the
population. All public welfare programmes are distributive. Agricultural subsidies to the
farmers, subsidized food for the poor, and government health services are examples of such
policies. Redistributive policies are aiming at redistributing resources from one group to
another. The main objective of such policies is to set up an equitable society through
redistribution of social and economic rewards. Income tax policies are often cited as
examples of redistributive policies. Fred M. Frohock (1979) adds two more policies to Lowi’s
threefold dimension of public policy. These are capitalization and ethical policies. Subsidies
and tax concessions received by the business class come under capitalization policies. Such
distribution, in theory if not in practice, is aimed at increasing the productive capacity of a
society’s institutions. Although normally included in distributive policies, capitalization
policies are not like the primary consumptive distribution of welfare programmes. Ethical
policies are aimed at establishing the correct practice for some moral issues. For example,
the US Supreme Court’s decision in 1973 (Roe vs. Wade) made abortion a legally
acceptable alternative in the first three months of term. The court did not settle the moral
issues of abortion; many people still view abortion as morally wrong, even though it is legally
permitted. But the public policies following the court’s decision set out what ought and ought
not to be done in an area marked off by deep moral convictions. In effect, the supreme court
decision established legally permissible practices on a moral matter (Frohock 1979: 13).
Different kinds of public policies explain the varied functions performed by the government.
They represent the pattern of action either to resolve conflicting claims or provide incentives
for cooperation. They are basically aimed at providing air to political life. Models and

Approaches to Public Policy

Over the years political scientists have developed a number of models and approaches to
help us understand political life. The purpose of such exercise according to Thomas R. Dye
is to simplify and clarify our thinking about government and politics, to identify important
political forces in society, to communicate relevant knowledge about political life, to direct
inquiry into politics, and to suggest explanations for political events and outcomes
(Bhattacharya 2008: 127). The theoretical approaches that will come under brief examination
here include system theory, elite theory, group theory, rational decision-making theory,
incrementalism, game theory, and institutionalism. These models represent different ways of
looking at public policy. These are of course not mutually exclusive. Each has a distinct
focus and each suggests specific things about political life and policy. Based on Thomas R.
Dye’s classification, following is a brief description of each model, with particular attention to
the separate ways in which public policy can be viewed.

Institutional Approach

Traditionally, this approach has been the basic analytical tool for studying the political
activities of the government in political science. According to this view, public policies have
their origin in governmental institutions such as legislatures, executives, courts, and political
parties. A policy becomes a public policy, only when it is authoritatively determined by
government institutions. Government gives legitimacy and universalistic character to a
policy. Public policy is authoritatively determined, implemented, and enforced by government
institutions. Thus, the relationship between public policy and government institutions is very
close. Institutional approach is criticized for ignoring the living linkages between institutions
and public policy. With the onrush of the behavioural revolutions in political science,
institutional studies of the policy process were swept aside in favour of studies that relied
more on the group, system, and elite–mass models.

Group Theory

Group theory believes that group interest and attitude are influential factors in determining
public policies. Public policy is the product of group struggle. As Earl Latham states, ‘[W]hat
may be called public policy is the equilibrium reached in this (group) struggling at any given
moment, and it represents a balance which the contending factions or groups constantly
strive to weight in their favour’ (Bhattacharya 2008: 126). As different interest groups
struggle among themselves to influence public policy, actual policymaking in the government
tends to tilt towards the groups that are gaining in influence. By contrast, public policy moves
away from the demands of the losing groups. Thus, public policy, at any given time, will
reflect the interests of the dominant groups. However, the weakness of this theory is that it
overstates the importance of groups and understates the independent and creative role that
public officials play in the policy process. It is also misleading and inefficient in explaining
politics or policy formulation in terms of a group struggle without giving attention to other
factors like ideas and institutions.

Elite Theory

This theory views public policy as the preferences and values of the governing elite. It
believes that people are passive, apathetic, and ill-informed about public policy. Initiative for
public policy does not come from the masses. The elite actually shape mass opinion into a
policy question. Thus, public policy really turns out to be the preferences of elites. Public
officials and administrators merely carry out the policies decided by the elite. In this model,
policies flow ‘downward’ from elites to masses, they do not arise from mass demands. The
elite theory has close resemblance with the group theory, as both refer to policy generation
through pressures from specific interests in the society. Group theory, however, is basically
pluralistic, whereas elite theory is essentially monistic (Bhattacharya 2008: 127).

Rational Model

This model emphasizes that policy-making is a choice among policy alternatives on rational
grounds. Herbert Simon, Yehezkel Dror, and Thomas R. Dye are the main protagonists of
this model. Robert Haveman (1970) observes that a rational policy is one that is correctly
designed to maximize ‘net value achievement’. As an intellectual endeavour, rationalism tries
to learn all the preferences existing in a society, assign each value a relative weight,
discover all policy alternatives available, know all consequences of each alternative,
calculate how the selection of any policy will affect the remaining alternatives in terms of
opportunity costs, and ultimately select that policy alternative which is the most efficient in
terms of the costs and benefits of social values (Henry 2007: 290). Thomas R. Dye (2004)
equates rationality with efficiency. He says that a policy is rational when it is most efficient,
that is, if the ratio between the value it achieves and the value it sacrifices is positive and
higher than any other policy alternatives. Much of the rationalist paradigm deals with the
construction of public policies that assure better public policies. Yehezkel Dror calls this
concern ‘meta policy’ or policy for policy-making procedures. In a rational model, policy has
to look logical and factual. Thus, Herbert Simon’s ‘rational model of decision-making’,
separated ‘facts’ from ‘values’ and brought into policy-making, new scientific techniques like
computer and mathematical modelling. Rationality, according to Herbert Simon, is concerned
with the selection of preferred behaviour alternatives in terms of some system of values
whereby the consequences of behaviour can be evaluated. According to him, three kinds of
activities are involved in a rational policy-making process–intelligence activity, design activity,
and choice activity. Herbert Simon recognizes efficiency as the primary objective of
administration, and also the limits of individuals and organizations to behave in completely
rationally. The concept he develops to describe a rationality which is limited but not
‘irrational’ is ‘bounded rationality’. There are many barriers to rational policy-making. There
are no uniform societal values. We have only the values of specific groups and individuals
which are conflicting. The environment of policymakers renders it impossible to see many
societal values. Due to the cost of information gathering, the availability of the information
and the time involved in its collection are barriers in collecting all the information required to
know all possible policy alternatives and the consequences of each alternative.
Policy-makers have personal needs, inhibitions, and inadequacies which prevent them from
performing in a highly rational manner. That is why even a rational policy scientist Yehezkel
Dror wants a policy analyst to broaden their use of extra rational information including
intuition and exceptional leadership with acute perception of social reality.

Incremental Model

Incrementalism views public policy as a continuation of previous government activities with

only incremental modification. Charles E. Lindblom first presented the incremental model in
the course of a critique of the traditional rational model of decision-making. According to
Lindblom, decision-makers do not annually review the whole range of existing and proposed
policies because of the constraints of time, intelligence, and cost it involves. Policy-makers
generally accept the legitimacy of established programmes and tacitly agree to continue
previous policies. Policy-makers accept the legitimacy of previous policies because of the
uncertainty about the consequences of completely new or different policies. There are also
heavy investments in existing programmes (sunk costs) which preclude any really radical
change. Incrementalism is also politically expedient because it is easier to reach agreement
when the matters in dispute among various groups are only modifications of existing
programmes, rather than policy issues of greater magnitude or an ‘all or nothing’ character.
Thus, incrementalism is important in reducing conflicts, maintaining stability, and preserving
the political system itself. People are essentially pragmatic, seeking not always the single
way to deal with a problem but, working modestly, ‘something that will work’. In most cases,
modification of existing programmes will satisfy particular demands, and the major policy
shifts required to maximize values are overlooked. Finally, in the absence of any
agreed-upon societal goals or values, it is easier for the government to continue existing
programmes rather than engage in overall policy planning towards specific societal goals.
Incrementalism, in short, yields limited, practicable, and acceptable decisions. Incremental
approach is conservative in nature as it prefers to continue the existing policies and has no
vision for change.
Game Theory

Game theory is the study of rational decisions in a conflict situation. The idea of a ‘game’ is
that decision-makers are involved in choices that are interdependent. Each player has its
own goals or objectives. Each must consider how to achieve as much as possible; yet, each
has to take into account that there are others whose goals differ from their own and whose
actions have an effect on all others involved in the situation. In this game, there may be any
possible outcomes. Decision-makers are, thus, involved in a situation of interdependence.
All have to make their independent choice, but the outcome would be conditioned by the
choices made by each actor. This model is applicable to policy-making where there is no
independently ‘best’ choice that one can make, where the ‘best’ depends upon what others
do. Game theory can be applied to decisions about war and peace, the use of nuclear
weapons, international diplomacy, bargaining in the UN, and a variety of other important
political situations. Game theory is more frequently proposed as an analytic tool by social
scientists than as a practical guide to policy-making by government officials. The conditions
of game theory are seldom approximated in real life. Yet game theory provides an interesting
way of thinking clearly about policy choices in conflict situations.

System Approach

System approach considers public policy as an outcome of the political system. The political
system, as defined by David Easton, is composed of those interrelated institutions and
activities in a society that make authoritative decisions (or allocation of values) that are
binding on society. Inputs into the political system from the environment consist of demands
and support. The environment consists of all those conditions and events external to the
boundaries of the political system. Demands are the claims made by individuals and groups
on the political system for action to satisfy their interests. Outputs are authoritative value
allocations of the system; these allocations constitute public policy. The concept of feedback
indicates that public policies may have a modifying effect on the environment and the
demands arising from it, and may also have an effect upon the character of the political
system. Policy outcomes may produce new demands, which lead to further policy outputs,
and so on in a continuing, never ending flow of public policy. Thus, the system model relies
on concepts of information theory, especially, feedback, input, and output and conceives of
the processes as being essentially cyclical. Policy is originated, implemented, adjusted,
reimplemented, and readjusted (Henry 2007: 285). The system, according to Thomas Dye,
preserves itself by providing reasonably satisfying outputs, relying upon deeply rooted
attachments to the system itself, and using or threatening to use force. The usefulness of the
system model for the study of public policy is, however, limited owing to several factors. It is
argued that this model is too simplistic in nature. In many cases, policies do not appear to
follow such a logical sequence. This model also ignores how decisions are made and policy
is developed within the ‘black box’ called the political system. Another shortcoming of this
model is that it ignores an important element of the policy process, namely, that the
policy-makers, including institutions have also a considerable potential in influencing the
environment within which they operate. Nonetheless, system theory is a useful aid in
organizing our inquiry into policy information. It enlightens us about the role of environmental
inputs to affect the content of public policy, gives answers to some significant aspects of the
political process such as: What factors in the environment act to generate demands upon the
political system? How is the political system able to convert demands into public policy and
preserve itself over time? Thus, the system approach has been widely accepted as a useful
way of looking at the policy process as it actually works out in government. The preceding
section discussed various models and approaches to get a better understanding of the
public policy process. Each model provides a separate focus on political life, and each can
help us to understand different things about public policy. Thus, it is not possible to say
which is the ‘best’ or most satisfactory’. It would be better to use them as organizing
concepts that seem most useful for the satisfactory analysis and explanation of a particular
public policy or political action. Each of the approaches can contribute to our understanding
of public policy.

Public Policy: Functional Dimensions

Before coming to the public policy process—the central point of our discussion on the
functional dimensions—it would be better to understand the environment it works in. This
section will discuss the environment within which policy making occurs and some of the
official and unofficial participants who play an important role in policy formulation and
implementation. Here, the purpose is to give some notion of who participates in the policy
process and in what ways, as well as of what factors usually influence policy behaviour.

The Policy Environment

Policy-making cannot be adequately understood apart from the environment in which it takes
place. Demands for policy actions are generated in the environment and transmitted to the
political system, at the same time; the environment places limits and constraints upon what
can be done by policy-makers. James E. Anderson identifies two environmental factors,
namely, political culture and socioeconomic variables and their influence on policy makers.
Political culture means widely held values, beliefs, and attitudes concerning governmental
policies and actions. Differences In public policy and policy-making in various countries can
be explained, at least partly, in terms of political–cultural variations. Sociologist Robin W.
Williams has identified a number of ‘major-value orientations’ in American society. These
include individual freedom, equality, progress, efficiency, and practicality. Values such as
these and others, such as democracy and individualism clearly have significance for
policy-making. Political culture helps in political behaviour. Political cultural differences help
ensure that public policy is more likely to favour economic competition in the US because
individual opportunity is a widely held value, while it is more likely to tolerate industrial cartels
in China because economic competition has not been highly valued here. Socioeconomic
conditions also influence political activities to a great extent. Public policies can be usefully
viewed as arising out of conflicts between different groups of people—private and
official—processing differing interests and desires. One of the prime sources of conflict,
especially in modern societies, is economic activity. Conflicts may develop between the
interests of different groups. Groups that are underprivileged or dissatisfied with their current
relationships with other groups in the economy may seek governmental assistance to
improve their situation. Thus, it has been labour groups, dissatisfied with the wages resulting
from private bargaining with employers that have sought minimum wage legislation. A
society’s level of economic development will impose limits on what the government can do in
providing public goods and services to the community. The scarcity of economic resources
will, of course, be more limiting in many of the underdeveloped countries of the world than in
affluent societies, such as the US. Social conflicts and change also provoke demands for
government action. In the 1990s, there was a growing demand in India for reservation from
the backward classes. They put pressure on the government to evolve a policy of
reservation for the uplift of these classes. Those with conflicting interest and values opposed
such demands, with the consequences that public officials found themselves hard-pressed
to design acceptable policy solutions. It can be fairly drawn from this discussion that we must
consider social, economic, and political factors to understand how policy decisions are made
and why some decisions are made rather than others.
The Official Policy-makers

Official policy-makers are those who possess legal authority to engage in the formation of
public policy. These include legislators, executives, administrators, and judges. Each
performs policymaking tasks, at least somewhat different from the others. Legislatures are
concerned with the central political tasks of policy formation and law making in a political
system. In the course of approving, the legislative body performs other important functions
like deliberating, scrutinizing, criticizing, and publicizing government policies and their
consequences for the public on the floor of the house. Usually, it lays down the broad
objectives which administration is to pursue and in more important cases also the machinery
and the procedure through which they are to be pursued. Modern governments everywhere
depend vitally upon executive leadership, both in policy formulation and execution. In a
parliamentary form of government, all policies must have the approval of the cabinet and the
ministers of the government before introducing the Bill in the house. In developing countries,
the executive probably has even more influence in policy-making than in developed
countries. It is due to the lack of a strong bureaucratic base and little influence of the
pressure groups which facilitates greater concentration of power in governmental hands. In
the post Second World War period, the classical doctrine of politics–administration
dichotomy has been proved to be an exploding fallacy. Now, there is a consensus that
administrators are also involved in the policy formulation process in more than one way. In
complex industrial societies, the technicality and complexity of many policy matters and the
need for continuing control and lack of time and information among others, have led to the
delegation of much discretionary authority to administrative agencies formally, recognized as
the ‘rule making power’. Public officials, today, are associated with policy formulation in three
important ways. First, they supply facts, data, and analysis— regarding the workability of a
policy—to the ministers or to the legislature and impart content to a policy. Second, they are
constantly in touch with the public, so they have a better understanding of their problems
and the solutions required in the form of policies. Third, on account of lack of time and
knowledge, the legislature passes ‘skeletal’ acts and leaves the ‘body’ to be filled by the
administration. It is here that administrators have the maximum scope for ‘policy-making’.
Judiciary also plays an important role in public policies. In countries, where the courts have
the power of judicial review, they have played an important role in policy formation. They
have the power to determine the constitutionality of actions of the legislature and the
executive branches and to declare them null, and void, if such actions are found to be in
conflict with the constitutional provisions. They play an important role in giving direction to
social, economic, and political policies of national importance.

Unofficial Participants

Besides the official policy-makers, many other unofficial players may participate in the
policy-making process, like interest groups, political parties, and individual citizens and they
may considerably influence policy formation without possessing the legal authority to take
binding policy decisions.

Political parties

In modern societies, political parties generally perform the function of ‘interest aggregation’,
that is, they seek to convert the particular demands of interest groups into general policy
alternatives. Every political party has its own programmes or policies. These programmes,
policies, or values are presented to the people in the form of manifestos (before the
elections) in order to gain their support. The professional purpose of the manifesto is that it
lends a promise, that in case the party comes to power, it will implement the policies
promised therein. Since the government is formed by the leaders of the political party that
wins the majority of seats in the legislature, party cadres get involved in the formulation of
policies to which they are committed.

Pressure groups

Pressure groups are organizations with formal structures whose members share common
interests. They strive to influence the policies of the government without attempting to
occupy political offices. The main function of these groups is to express demands and
present alternatives for policy action. They constantly try to protect the interest of their
members either by pressurizing the government or the bureaucracy to take decisions, which
are likely to be in consonance with the interest of their members. They employ various
methods such as publicity campaigns, lobbying, personal meetings with the officials or
legislatures, writing letters or memoranda, and so on, for this purpose.

Individual citizens

In the present age, it is not possible for a government to impose policies on citizens
perennially, if such policies do not reflect their will. Public policies have to be consistent with
the interest of the citizens. A democratic government cannot adopt policies to which a large
body of citizens is opposed. Thus, the citizens exercise indirect influence on policy-making.
The exercise of the right to vote enables the citizens to make a choice of public policies.
Elections are opportunities for the citizens to select between the alternative policies thrown
up by the political parties.

Public Policy Process

Scholars have identified various interfaces to map the stages of the policy process, thereby
helping to structure its analysis. In this framework, public policy is a sequential pattern of
action. These interfaces are briefly presented here:
1. Problem Formation: What is policy problem? What makes it a public problem? How does
it get on the agenda of the government?
2. Formulation: How are alternatives for dealing with the problem developed? Who
participates in policy formulation?
3. Adoption: How is a policy alternative adopted or enacted? What requirements must be
met? Who adopts policy?
4. Implementation: What is done, if anything, to carry a policy into effect? What impact does
this have on policy content?
5. Evaluation: How is the effectiveness or impact of a policy measured? Who evaluates
policy? What are the consequences of policy evaluation? Are there demands for change or
repeal? (Anderson 1975: 26).
This framework has a number of advantages. In actuality, policy-making often does
chronologically follow the sequence of activities listed above. It helps to capture the flow of
action in the policy process. However, in order to simplify our discussion, we will classify the
policy-making process under three broad categories. These are (a) policy formulation, (b)
policy implementation, and (c) policy evaluation. Let us examine these in detail.

Public Policy Formulation

Public policy formulation is a dynamic process. A number of events, actors, and political
institutions take part in this process. It attempts to respond to the demands pressed by the
people. James E. Anderson describes four stages in the policy formulation process. These
are:
●​ Identifying public problems
●​ Putting public problems on policy agenda
●​ The formulation of policy proposals to deal the problem
●​ Making policy decisions

Public policies spring from issues that trouble a segment or segments of society to the point
of taking actions. Commonly speaking, everyone has problems in the course of daily life.
However, the difficulties that sow the seeds of public policy decisions fall into a unique
category. The individuals or groups who suffer rely on government action to change their
unfavourable condition into an acceptable situation. A public problem requiring government
response is more pervasive than a personal difficulty, and the concern of large numbers of
individuals with the same problem may transform that question into a public policy issue.
Larry Gerston identifies four triggering factors which play a vital role in identifying and
clarifying emerging issues for public policy. There are scope, intensity, time, and resources.
Identification of ‘public problems’ is the starting point for public policy questions.
The second stage in the policy formulation process is setting a policy agenda. Of the
thousands of demands made upon the government, only a small portion receive serious
attention from public policy-makers. Those demands that policy-makers either do choose or
feel compelled to act upon constitute the policy agenda. One possibility of this is suggested
by political scientist David Truman in his book The Government Process (1952). Truman
says that groups seek to maintain themselves in a state of reasonable equilibrium, and, if
anything threatens this condition, they react accordingly. Political leadership may be an
important factor in agenda setting. Political leaders, whether motivated by considerations of
political advantage, concern for the public interest, or both, may seize upon particular
problems, publicize them, and propose solutions. Protest activity, including violence, is
another means by which problems may be brought to the attention of policymakers and put
on the policy agenda. Recently, Government of Rajasthan, had to respond positively to the
demands of the ‘Gujjar’ community due to their long protest. They have been given 1 per
cent reservation in the state services. The media has also a long-standing reputation for
placing issues on the public agenda. News reports raise the awareness of both
policy-makers and their constituents. By transforming a onceprivate question into a public
issue, media agents expand the size of the audience and thus alter the dynamics of the
policy-making process. When a problem becomes a part of the public agenda, the next
stage of its journey is the formulation of policy proposals. Policy formation involves the
development of pertinent and accepted proposed courses of actions for dealing with public
problems. The government is the major source of initiative in the development of policy
proposals. Many policy proposals are developed by the public bureaucracy. Special study
groups or advisory commissions are also created by the government to examine particular
policy areas and develop policy proposals. Setting up of the Srikrishna Commission by the
Government of India for looking into the demands of the Telangana State is an example of
such advisory commissions. Legislature plays an important role in policy formation. In the
course of legislative hearings and investigations, through contacts with various
administrative officials and interest groups representatives, and on the basis of their own
interests and activity, legislators receive suggestions for action on problems and formulate
proposed courses of actions. Finally, interest groups often play a major role in policy
formulation, sometimes going to the legislature with specific proposals for legislation. Or,
they may also work with legislative and executive officials for the enactment of one officially
proposed policy, perhaps with some modifications to suit their interest. Competing proposals
for dealings with a given problem may come from these sources. Finally, what is likely to
result is the adoption of some compromise course of action based on these proposals. The
involvement of both public officials and private interest groups and adoption of compromised
proposals are the basic characteristics of policy formulation in most of the political systems.
The final stage in the policy-making process is policy formulation. Policy formulation is in
practice typically blended with the policy decision stage of the policy process. Formulation is
directed towards winning approval of a preferred policy alternative; an affirmative decision is
the pay-off of the entire process. A policy decision involves action by some official person or
body to approve, modify, or reject a preferred policy alternative. In a positive fashion, it takes
such forms as the enactment of legislation or the issuance of an executive order. Although
private individuals and organizations also participate in taking policy decisions, the formal
authority rests with public–officials–legislators, executive, administrators, and judges. In
democracies, the task of taking policy decisions is most closely identified with the legislature,
which is designed to represent the interests of the populace. Policy decisions taken by the
legislature are usually accepted as legitimate, as being made in the proper way and hence
binding on all concerned. The policy formulation procedure is completed only after the
appropriate authority has adopted the policy.

Public Policy Implementation

Until the 1970s, policy analysts gave little attention to the policy implementation aspect. By
the mid-1970s, it was found that many policies had not performed well. As it became
apparent that policymaking in many areas such as population, health, education, and
agriculture had not achieved its desired goals, researchers in public administration and
public analysis began to focus on policy implementation process. Simply speaking,
implementation is the task of putting formulated policies to practice. It represents the
conscious conversion of policy plans into reality. It is the ‘follow-through’ component of the
public policy-making process. Policy implementation reveals the strengths and weaknesses
of the decision-making process. Ironically, very little work had been done in this field until
1973, when Pressman and Wildavsky christened this infant area of study asi
Implementation’. While some disagreement exists over the elements that compose
implementation, certain assumptions seem to have wide-spread acceptance. For
implantation to occur:
●​ There must be an entity with sufficient resources assigned to carry out the
implementation task;
●​ the implementing agency must be able to translate goods into an operational
framework; and​
●​ the entity assigned the implementing task must deliverits assignment and be
accountable for its actions (Randall, Ripley, and Franklin 1986: 10–11).
Identification of the components necessary for implementation in no way is a barometer of
success, such awareness only points to the myriad hurdles that must be overcome en route
to fulfilling a policy objective.

The Implementation Process

Implementation process involves the continuation of the political process which had actually
authored the policy. This is the reason why governments which have formulated a particular
policy, find it easier to implement it, rather than the governments which inherit the task of
implementation from the previous governments. The implementation process has the
following characteristics:
1.​ Implementation translates the policies into collective action. It brings beneficiaries
and passive people together so that the implementation can be effectively
channelised
2.​ Implementation deals with the problem of control and accountability in administration.
3.​ Implementation largely depends upon street-level discretion. Luther Gullick has found
that actual discretion in administration is used at the very bottom of the hierarchy
where public servants touch the public.
4.​ Policy implementation has no clear-cut end point which marks the end of the
implementation process. The implementation of a section in a policy is the starting
point of the other episode or problem area. It is an ongoing process which never
ends till the policy is withdrawn or funds end.
5.​ Implementation involves intergovernmental bargaining. Since every policy involves
the cooperative efforts of several agencies, hence their mutual understanding,
cooperation in the policy execution, coordination amongst themselves, and allocation
of grants plays a decisive role in getting the policy implemented.

Who Implements Policy?

Public administration is mainly a policy implementation organization. Many other actors like
legislature, courts, pressure groups, and community organizations help the process. In a
modern political system, public policy is implemented primarily by a complex system of
administrative agencies. These agencies perform most of the day-to-day work of
government and thus affect citizens directly in their actions. Administrative agencies often
operate under broad and ambiguous statutory mandates that leave them with much
discretion to decide what should or should not be done. Lack of time, interest, information,
and expertness on the part of politicians may also contribute to the delegation of authority to
these agencies. Policy implementation is not an easy task. Without cooperation of top
administrators, little can be achieved. In policy implementation, administrators, especially
senior executives should have the following functions:
(a) Administrators must clearly understand the nature and significance of policies which the
political masters have set. They are responsible for advising in the formulation of policies
designed to achieve goals, and also mobilizing, organizing, and managing the resources
necessary to carry through these policies.
(b) They should assist policy-makers to avoid ambiguities and advise them on the
importance of adopting policies which can be implemented.
(c) They should be able to translate the general policies and their objectives into operational
targets. This function should also include analysis of probable cost and benefit of each for
achieving the operational targets. As far as possible, they should adopt a rational approach
and use management techniques to implement policies.
(d) They should be able to pay special attention to the question of coordination of policies
and policy instruments. They should analyse the policy in question in relation to other
policies to see if any inconsistencies exist, and examine whether it complements or
supplements other policies to produce better results (Dror 1974: 12).
Bureaucratic organizations have been subjected to a number of criticisms. It is said to be
afflicted with excesses of red tapism, unresponsiveness, hierarchies, and rigid-rule
frameworks. Despite these maladies, it holds importance. Kenneth Meier writes, ‘when faced
with a cute crisis, chronic problems, or even apathy, the positive state [Government]
responds, and the response usually includes a bureaucracy’. To a large extent, bureaucratic
agencies are the responses to the directions of public policies. While administrative
machinery is the primary implementers of public policy, the legislative bodies are also
involved in policy implementation. Though the role of the legislative bodies is not very
crucial, they may affect administrative organizations in several ways. It subjects
administrative discretion and delegation. Parliamentary approval is required for many
top-level administrative appointments, and this may be used to influence the implementation
process. Judiciary also plays an important role in policy implementation. Some laws are
enforced primarily through judicial action. The courts affect administration through their
interpretation of statutes and administrative rules and regulations, and their review of
administrative decisions in cases brought before them. Courts can facilitate, hinder, or
largely nullify the implementation of particular policies through their decisions. Political
parties also affect the policy implementation process. They try to influence, both the
executives and the bureaucracy, to implement policies which serve their purpose.
Sometimes, they prevent the implementation of a policy which goes contrary to their
ideology. Civil society groups, NGOs, and community organizations also help the
enforcement of implementation. The Panchayats after the 73rd Amendment Act have acted
as an integrating device for grassroots agencies. In short, a variety of participants affect the
implementation of a given policy.

Hurdles in Policy Implementation

Policy implementation is not an easy task. The following factors make this exercise more
difficult.
●​ the absence of adequate financial resources;
●​ bureaucracy cooperates minimally in providing data to substantiate the findings;
●​ lack of political support and political interference;
●​ government agencies and pressure groups present conflicting data and rationalize
their own findings;
●​ lack of public involvement in policy implementation programmes;
 ●​ lack of administrative will and motivation;
●​ poor coordination and cooperation;
●​ politicization of policies to pleasure the strong groups in the electorate; and
●​ centralization of power and hierarchical bureaucratic structure;

No doubt, implementation is a complex problem. But the success of any government and
administration depends largely upon successful implementation of policies. Policy does not
implement itself. It has to be translated into action. It requires strong determination, will, and
action. Policies must be proposed, structured, funded, and directed so that the implementing
bureaucracy has a clear framework for application. For policies to succeed, clear lines of
transmission and jurisdiction must be drawn. Thus, policy-makers have to be precise, while
bureaucratic discretionary authority must be constrained. In addition, implementation
requires willing cooperation by relevant actors and institutions.

Policy Evaluation

The final stage of the policy process is the evaluation. Simply defined, policy evaluation
assesses the effectiveness of a public policy in terms of its perceived intentions and results.
It is the best opportunity for those interested in knowing whether a commitment has been
called out in line with its design. It is also the last major opportunity to bring the policy back
into the decision-making arena, if it has been mismanaged or if it has led to undesirable
impacts. With its emergence in the ‘back end’ of the public-policy framework, evaluation has
become an important element in the policymaking process, as well as a predictor of further
action to come. The main objective of policy evaluation is to reduce the problem in the face
of policy delivery, and is generally used for one or more of the three purposes of assessing:
policy efficiency, policy effectiveness, and policy impact. Besides these purposes, it provides
reliable information about policy performance. The aim of evaluation here is to measure the
impact of policies on society. It reveals the extent to which particular goals have been
achieved. It helps us to understand the degree to which policy issues have been resolved.

Types of Evaluation Policy-makers and administrators have always made judgements

concerning the worth or effects of particular policies, programmes, and projects. Joseph S.
Wholey has identified three types of policy evaluation activities which are as follows:
●​ Type I: Programme Impact Evaluation is an assessment of overall programme impact
and effectiveness. The emphasis is on determining the extent to which programmes
are successful in achieving basic objectives and on the comparative evaluation of
national programmes.
●​ Type II: Programme Strategy Evaluation is an assessment of the relative
effectiveness of programme strategies and variables. The emphasis is on
determining which programme strategies are most productive.
●​ Type III: Project Monitoring is an assessment of individual projects through site visits
and other activities with emphasis on managerial and operational efficiency (Wholey
1970: 62).

Systematic evaluation directs attention to the effects a policy has on the public problem to
which it is directed. It permits at least some tentative responses to the question 'is this policy
accomplishing anything?’ It gives policy-makers and the general public some notion of the
actual impact of policy and provides policy discussions with some grounding in reality
Methods of Evaluation

In the past, evaluation had mostly been in terms of economic analysis of policies. Therefore,
most tools of evaluation studies have been taken from economics. They have been aimed at
setting up economic targets of productivity analysis, efficiency evaluation, and the
cost-benefit studies. There are three commonly used tools of evaluation.

Cost-benefit analysis

This is the most commonly used approach in evaluation studies. It employs the balancing of
costs and the benefits of the policies in a manner so that the profit and losses can be
assessed in purely economic terms. Basically, this method requires systematic enumeration
of all benefits and all costs, readily quantifiable or difficult to measure, which will accrue if a
particular project is adapted. With all this information at hand, the analyst should be able to
subtract the total cost of each alternative from the total sum of its benefits and identify the
net gain in each case. This was the most reliable, simple, and clear-cut system of analysis
but it was incapable of evaluating policies of the intangibles, like the impact of the free meal
policy for children upon their performance, at the loss of environment due to mining or the
impact of oil refinery on the coastal marine and human life. The cost-benefit analysis is
incapable of assessing all these complex variables in public policy.

Programme-planning and budgeting system (PPBS)

This method has been widely adopted by government agencies in recent years. It is an
attempt to rationalize decision-making in a bureaucracy. It is a part of the budgetary process
but the focus is on the uses of expenditures and the output provided for, rather than an
amount allocated by agency or department. The aim of PPBS is to specify the output of a
government programme, and then to minimize the cost of achieving this output and to learn
whether benefits exceed the cost. The first step in PPBS is to define programme objectives.
The next, and perhaps critical step, is to develop measures of the level of accomplishment
under each programme—the ‘output’. Then, the cost of the programme can be calculated
per unit of output. Presumably, this enables the decision makers to view the real cost-benefit
ratio of a programme; for example, how much it costs to teach one pupil per year or keep
one child in a day-care centre, and so on.

The experimental method

In this method, the basis of evaluation is an ‘ideal’ laboratory-like situation in which some
units in a population who received some service under the policy measures have been
randomly selected, while others have not received it. In evaluating the performance of such
policies and programmes, samples of different groups—who have received and who have
not received—are selected for comparative analysis. Relevant variables of the groups are
then studied before and after, and even during the programme period, in order to find out the
difference of impact. Subsequently, statistical methods are used for testing the data for
significance levels.
Evaluating Agencies

Another significant area of study in the field of policy evaluation is the role of various
agencies involved in it. Within the government, a few agencies of official policy evaluation
are the legislatures and their committees, the audit office, commissions of enquiry, and the
departmental evaluation reports.

Legislative Bodies

A common practice in democratic countries is the involvement of legislative bodies in policy

evaluation. The legislative body exercises policy evaluation through the technique of
questions and debates—motions like call attention, no-confidence, committee hearing and
investigation—and through the budgetary process. Since the legislature is a large body and
overburdened with routine matters, it is their smaller committees, which take up detailed
investigative and evaluative work. In India, for example, we have a number of such
committees, like the public accounts committees, committee on the welfare of Scheduled
Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and so on.

Audit Process

In India, the auditor’s office has broad statutory authority to audit the operation and finance
of the activities of government agencies, evaluate their programmes, and report their
findings to the parliament. Evaluation studies may be taken up by the office of the Controller
and Auditor General (CAG) on its own initiative, on the basis of directives in legislation, at
the request of financial committees, or sometimes at the request of individual members of
parliament. The office of the CAG of India, which is regarded as an arm of the parliament,
has broad statutory authority to ensure the accountability of the executive to the parliament.
It assists the legislature in the executive exercise of its financial control.

Administrative Agencies

All government departments prepare their internal evaluation reports, which provide an
opportunity to appraise the working of the programmes and projects undertaken by the
department. Similarly, every department while sending its own demand for grants to the
finance ministry evaluates in the process its annual plans, programmes, and performance.
The organization and methods division in ministries also indirectly perform the task of policy
evaluation.

Commissions and Independent Agencies

From time to time, appointments of certain commissions like the Planning Commission, the
administrative reform commission, and various ad hoc commissions by the government play
an important role in public policy evaluation by presenting their detailed research reports on
the consequences and impact of particular government policies. Evaluation activity is also
carried on outside the government. University research scholars, private research institutes,
pressure groups, and public interest organizations make evaluation of policies that have
impact on public officials to some extent.They also provide the large public with information,
publicize policy action or inaction, advocate enactment or withdrawal of policies, and often
effectively voice the demands of the weaker sections of the public.

Barriers in Policy Evaluation

No doubt, evaluation is an important component of the policymaking process which must be

objective, systematic, and empirical. But, a number of barriers stand in the way of those who
try to evaluate policies. The first problem is regarding uncertainty over policy goals. When
the goals of policy are unclear or diffused, policy evaluation becomes a difficult task. In such
a case, officials may define goals differently and act accordingly. Second, there is the
difficulty of measuring the extent to which these goals have been achieved. Evaluators
themselves may not be impartial individuals to take an objective view of a policy issue. The
same condition can be interpreted differently by different evaluators. Third, a shortage of
accurate and relevant data and statistics may hinder the work of a policy evaluator. Official
resistance is another barrier in policy evaluation, because agencies and programme officials
see the possible political consequences of evaluation. If the results do not come out in their
favour, they may discourage or disparage evaluation studies, refuse access to data or keep
records that are incomplete. Finally, it is a general observation that organizations tend to
resist change, while evaluation implies change. Organizational inertia may, thus, be an
obstacle to evaluation, along with more forms of resistance. Public policy evaluation is a very
complex process. Many participants are involved and many factors influence the outcome in
this process. Nevertheless, evaluation has taken its place as a vital element of the public
policy process; it is a potentially powerful mechanism that compares promise with
performance, as well as the linkage between the present and the future. Thus, although
evaluation may seem to be an almost gratuitous ‘back door’ of the policy-making cycle, it
also serves as the window for policymaking decisions yet to come.

Public Policy Process in India

Policy-making is a vital function of the government in a democratic country like India. The
process of policy-making begins with the ideas and opinions people have about the actions
they want the government to undertake. In other words, they are the demands or proposals
made by civil society organizations or interest groups upon the political system for action on
some perceived problem. People with demands, either supported or opposed by interest
groups, seek to achieve some commitments from the government to put their ideas into
action (Sapru 2010: 152). In the Indian parliamentary system, the activities of the
government are carried out by the council of ministers headed by the prime minister. In the
council of ministers, the cabinet occupies an important place, as it is the body which makes
important decisions pertaining to government policies. The cabinet formulates all the policies
and sends them to the parliament for approval. The parliament consisting of the Lok Sabha
and Rajya Sabha discusses the policy before approving it. Lots of discussions and debates
take place in both houses of the parliament. However, the support of majority members
paves the way for approval of the policy. Once it is cleared by both the houses, it is sent to
the president for his assent. The president is free either to give his assent or withhold it. On
occasions, he can send the Bill back to the parliament with his comments and
recommendations. After incorporating the changes proposed by the president, the Bill is sent
back to him for assent and he is bound to give the assent. The recommendations made by
the president can be ignored by the parliament if the government has a strong majority in
both the houses (Dey 1989: 79). After going through this process a Bill is converted into a
policy. Another stage in the public policy process is policy implementation. The real fruits of a
policy can be enjoyed when the policy is implemented effectively. In India, various institutions
like the legislature, executive, judiciary, civil service, NGOs, and others, participate directly or
indirectly in the process of policy implementation. The legislature plays an important role in
the policy implementation process by expressing its opinion during the question hour
session. Members of Parliament (MPs) can ask the government any question of importance.
There are several committees, like the Public Accounts Committee, Estimate Committee,
and Select Committees that enable the members to scrutinize the government’s decision.
Every year at the budgetary discussions, MPs can express their views. The judiciary also
plays an important role in the policy implementation process. Any policy formulated by the
government leading to incongruence with the Constitution is declared null and void by the
Supreme Court of India. The introduction of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) also enables the
Supreme Court to direct the government to alter faulty policy and check the implementation
of wrong policy. The role of the executive in the policy implementation process is very
important. With the cooperation of the civil service, the executive is primarily responsible for
implementation of the policies. Civil servants can materialize the policy in the right direction
due to their skill, knowledge, and experience. Public policy is meant for the welfare of the
citizens. Civil servants, therefore, maintain healthy cooperation with citizens in implementing
public policy. After being successfully implemented, a policy is evaluated in order to assess
its effectiveness in terms of its perceived intentions and results. In India, the official policy
evaluation agencies are the legislatures and their committees, the CAG, commissions of
enquiry, and the departmental evaluation reports. Evaluation activity is also carried on
outside the government. University research scholars, private research institutes, pressure
groups, and public interest organizations make evaluations of policies that have an impact
on public officials to some extent. They also provide the large public with information,
publicize policy action or inaction, advocate enactment or withdrawal of policies and often
effectively voice the demands of the weaker sections of the public. Through the policy
evaluation process, the policy-makers get feedback for better policy formulation.

Policy Sciences and Public Policy Process

An Evaluation With the political scientist Harold Lasswell’s essay on ‘The Policy Orientation’
authored with Daniel Lerner (1951), the study of public policies came to be newly christened
as policy sciences. According to Lasswell, the policy sciences study the process of deciding
or choosing and evaluate the relevance of available knowledge for the solution of particular
problems. Yehezkel Dror, an authority in the field, describes policy sciences as a discipline
which searches for policy knowledge that seeks general policy-issue knowledge and
policy-making knowledge, and integrates them into a distinct study. The complex problems
of public policy in the 1950s were left to public authorities and whomever they chose to
consult. In the 1960s, more specialists entered the public policy-making arena concerned
about urban problems, environmental controls, weapons systems, poverty programmes, and
civil rights. In the 1970s and 1980s, much effort was devoted to expanding the relevance
while adhering to the scientific rigour of the policy sciences. The focus on ‘sciences’ as well
as on ‘democracy’ by Lasswell led to the emergence of two separate approaches to the
policy sciences—policy analyses and policy process. While, one emphasizes knowledge of
the policy process, the other, emphasizes knowledge for use in the policy process. In the
post 1990s, the policy sciences are shifting their focus on normative truths and improving
their ability to serve the knowledge needs of the administrative and political community in the
form of direct policy inquiry. Normative values and public management are the core concerns
of the present-day policy sciences. Public policies are developed in response to the
existence of a perceived problem or an opportunity. They are the products of a dynamic
process. The process model is useful in helping us understand the various activities involved
in policy-making. There are four main steps in the public policy process—identifying a
problem, formulating a policy, implementing the policy, and evaluating the result. In this
framework, public policy is a sequential pattern of action. It helps to capture the flow of
action in the policy process. The first step in the public policy process is to outline the
problem. This involves not only recognizing that an issue exists, but also studying the
problem and its causes in detail. After identifying and studying the problem, a new public
policy may be formulated or developed. This step is typically marked by discussion and
debate between government officials, interest groups, and individual citizens to identify
potential obstacles, to suggest alternative solutions, and to set clear goals and list the steps
that need to be taken to achieve them. A new policy must be put into effect, which typically
requires determining which organizations or agencies will be responsible for carrying it out. It
is the conscious conversion of policy plans into reality. This is the third step of the public
policy process. Policy implementation reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the
decision-making process. The final stage in the public policy process is known as evaluation.
This step usually involves a study of how effective the new policy has been in addressing the
original problem, which often leads to additional public policy changes. It also includes
reviewing funds and resources available to ensure that the policy can be maintained. In the
words of Thomas Dye, ‘Sophisticated versions of the model portray a “feedback”
linkage—evaluations of current policy identify new problems and set in motion the
policymaking process once again.’ Though most policy evaluations are unsystematic and
impressionistic, yet, they often succeed in stimulating reforms-policy changes designed to
remedy perceived mistakes, inadequacies, wasteful expenditures, and other flaws in existing
policy (Dye 2004: 54). Public policies play an important role in resolving societal problems.
But, at the same time we must also recognize the limitations of the policies in affecting
societal conditions. Thomas Dye identifies a number of such limitations. First, some societal
problems are incapable of solution because of the way in which they are defined. If the
problems are defined in relative rather than absolute terms, they may never be resolved by
public policy. For example, if the poverty line is defined as the line which places one-fifth of
the population below it, then poverty will always be with us regardless of how well off the
‘poor’ may become. Thus, relative disparities in society may never be eliminated. Second,
expectations may always outrace the capabilities of governments. Third, policies that resolve
the problems of one group in society may create problems for other groups. For example,
solving the problem of inequality in society may mean redistributive tax and spending
policies which take from persons of above-average wealth to give to persons with
below-average wealth. The latter may view this as a solution, but the former may view this
as creating serious problems. Thus, there are no policies which can simultaneously attain
mutually exclusive ends. Fourth, societal problems may have multiple causes, and a specific
policy may not be able to eradicate the problem. For example, job training may not affect the
hard-core unemployment if their employability is also affected by chronic poor health. Finally,
the political system is not structured for completely rational decision-making. The solution of
societal problems generally implies a rational model, but the government may not be
capable of formulating policy in a rational fashion. Instead, the political system may reflect
group interests, elite preferences, environmental forces, or incremental change, more than
rationalism. Presumably, a democratic system is structured to reflect mass influences,
whether these are rational or not. Elected officials respond to the demands of their
constituents, and this may inhibit completely rational approaches to public policy. Thus,
public policy is a response to societal problems, but it is conditioned by the environment in
which it is framed. However, despite a number of limitations, the study of public policy
enables us to understand the causes and consequences of policy decisions and improves
our knowledge about the society. Therefore, public policy as an activity and area of study
continues to hold relevance as long as one finds the process of governance.

Concluding Observations

To sum up, public policy-making is a very complex, dynamic process whose various
components make different contributions to it. It decides major guidelines for action directed
at the future, mainly by the governmental organ. These guidelines or policies, formally aim at
achieving what is in the public interest by the best possible means (Gerston 1974: 141–42).
As society becomes complex, the rush of issues to the public agenda will only increasingly
test limited resources and competing values. The policy-making process is one way of
understanding the means through which conflicting demands are heard, reconciled and
resolved in orderly, if not always satisfactory fashion. Fundamentally, it provides some
explanation of the cacophony known as ‘politics’ in an ever changing society.