Public Policy Making - PPT 2
Public Policy Making - PPT 2
Education
Secondary School: St Francis Xavier Junior Seminary, Wa, 1997
BA: Legon, First Clsss Honours, 2003
MA: Brock University, Canada 2007
PhD: University of Ottawa, Canada, 2013
Working Experience
University of Ottawa, Canada: 2007-2016
Zayed University, Dubai: 2017-2021
Email: jjzaato@ug.edu.gh
Objectives:
Understand the importance, nature, and limits of public policies, their
success criteria and factors
In the 1970s -1980s, the traditional bargain guiding the relationship between politicians
and career officials, which began to take shape in the early 1900s, was still in place.
If the policymaking and implementation process was a dance floor, ministers and
bureaucrats completely dominated it in the 1980s
Ministers and bureaucrats were able to operate in isolation and prepare policy initiatives
with limited public consultation and engagement in this closed and monopolised floor.
The Glue is Coming Unstuck
Savoies (2006) argues that today the dance floor is over-crowded with new actors:
lobbyists, interest and advocacy groups, think tanks, research institutes, policy
consultants and the media
They are “elbowing their way onto the dance floor” at the invitation of politicians
It’s a very different time and dance, one in which public servants “no longer control their
work environment to anything like the extent they did 25 years ago.”
In brief, government has become a porous operation, open to many policy actors.
This new dance requires new tools, skills and expertise that public servants might be lacking.
What is Public Policy?
A public policy is a complex phenomenon consisting of numerous decisions made by
numerous individuals and organizations in government (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003, p.8)
In this class, a “Public Policy is anything a government chooses to do or not to do” (Dye,
1972)
When we talk about public policies therefore, we fundamentally mean the actions and in-
actions of government.
Public Policies therefore involve a choice to be made by government.
It breaks down the complexity of the process into a number of stages and sub-stages so
that each can be investigated separately or in relation to the others (Wu et al., 2010)
It allows for numerous and complex cases to be analysed in a comparative manner and at
each stage of the cycle.
we can know in a logical manner at which stage a particular policy is, and then determine its success at that stage
It can be used at the local (agency), national (government), and international (UN)level for policy analysis.
it can also be used to determine what each jurisdiction is doing at any particular time.
Since different stages can be studied separately, it can be used to determine where more
resources/training is needed
Demerits of the Policy Cycle Public Policies
It can be misunderstood to mean that policymakers use a very systematic, linear and
logical system all the time
In reality, the policy process is non-linear, sometimes impromptu and difficult to map out
There are no indications as to who and what drives the policy from one stage to the other
and why.
For instance, what forces and drivers move a policy from adoption to implementation and why?
As an analytical tool, it is very good, but not as an actual and practical tool.
In short, there are usually no linear progression of the public policy process as implied by the ideal model.
What is Agenda-Setting?
In order to better understand Agenda-Setting, answers to the following questions are
critical.
Why do some issues end up getting government attention while other do not?
Why do governments feel to respond or act to some issues while ignoring others?
How come when some people, institutions, and actors speak, the government listens while it ignores others with similar
concerns?
At its most basics, therefore, agenda-setting is about the recognition of a problem, issue,
concern, and demand by the government (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003)
Problems are not objective, just sitting there waiting to be seen and recognised. Problem
recognition is a socially constructed process.
Policy Windows and Agenda-Setting?
Public Policies
John Kingdon (1984) developed the concept of Policy Windows to explain agenda-setting
processes in the US government.
Wu et al., (2010) have identified five challenges public managers face in the agenda
setting stage.
These are:
The increasing use of crisis-driven agendas
Prevention is better than cure, but most often, politicians wait until its too late.
Agenda setting is mostly a lip service opportunity by politicians
Over crowding of the policy agenda is a pervasive problem
Agenda setting might be hijacked by the media, special interest groups
Actors in Agenda Setting in Ghana
Deciding and formulating a course of action is the second most important stage in the
policymaking process
At its basics, therefore, policy formulation involves assessing the various options
available for addressing a public problem
It involves assessing available options, narrowing them down and selecting the optimal one.
Formulation is usually done in a particular government institution and that institution might become
synonymous with the policy
It may occur without any support from inside or outside government for any proposal put forth
Several appeal points exists for those that loose out of the initial formulation process
The process is not neutral. There are always winners and losers.
Players in Policy Formulation/Adoption
In any given political system, the role of actors is determined by and depends upon the
nature of the political system and the specific nature of the policy problem
Legislatures and specific legislative committees through legislative overview and review
The key government Ministry/Department/Agency under whose jurisdiction the policy falls
At its basics therefore, policy implementation involves putting into action the intentions
and decisions of government
Breathing life into vague, unclear, and conflicting intentions and beliefs
Departmental turf wars also plays a big role in the policy implementation role
e.g. bureaucratic agencies at different levels of government (National, State/Provincial, and Local)
Implementation is often expensive and long and requires continued funding and which is
neither permanent nor guaranteed
Manage expectations and budget for the unexpected
Unions, NGOs, and Civil Society can enhance or constrain policy implementation
What is needed is collaboration and networking among and between all stakeholders
International Financial Institutions like the World Bank/IMF and the entire donor
community and funding plays a big role
Operational Capacity Barriers
Fund and resource limitation:
•The shortage or unavailability of funds is a classical challenge to policy implementation
Policy evaluation can therefore be defined as a determination of how a policy has actually
fared, once implemented
It involves an assessment of the means used and the ends achieved
Policy analysts and audit units in individual government departments and agencies
Informal Actors in the Policy Evaluation Process
The Media
Different Types of Evaluation Public Policies
Howlett and Ramesh (2003) have identified three main levels of policy evaluation.
These are:
Administrative Evaluation
Judicial Evaluation
Political Evaluation
Administrative Evaluation Public Policies
It is also known as Value For Money (VFM) Evaluation and performed in government
departments and agencies by specialist.
Performance Evaluation: focuses on outputs rather than inputs (number of kids in school, crime rate, number
of nurses).
Effectiveness Evaluation: is the program doing what it is supposed to do? Focus on outcomes, effects,
impact
Efficiency Evaluation: attempts to assess the costs of a program to determine if the same amount can achieve
more at a lower costs
Value for Money Evaluation
The Office of the Auditor General of Canada’s (2000) Manual for Value-For Money Audit/Evaluation defined it
as:
oa systematic, purposeful, organized and objective examination of government activities.
This relates to the legal issues with which certain government programs are formulated
and implemented
Also known as judicial review, they are carried out by the judiciary and are concerned
with possible constitutional conflicts
The judiciary can and does review government policies and programs either on its own or
when its powers are invoked
For instance, the Supreme Court of the US was asked to rule on the constitutionality or otherwise of the
Healthcare Reform Act
Different legal and political systems grant courts different powers of review.