Priming Public Policy Analysis Synthesis

Priming Public Policy Analysis,
Synthesis, Design, Execution & Policy

‘Clinic’ in Ethiopia
Office of the Prime Minister, Legal and Policy Directorate General
Public Lecture - RL Vol XII No 378 MMXVIII
Yetnayet Ayele, PhD, AAU
Costantinos Berhutesfa Costantinos, PhD
Professor of Public Policy & Sustainable Institutional Reforms
https://addisababa.academia.edu/CostyCostantinos
Abstract
This theme of the research looks into factors that can affect policy execution in Ethiopia
with emphasis on the role of civic engagement for policy execution. With increased emphasis
to the role of good governance for development, the trend is towards participatory
policymaking and the public choice. However, civic engagements in the
policy process are not common in many developing countries; much
has to be done to strengthen it. The study concluded that policy
execution problems are common for both the developed and the
developing countries, but the problem is severe in developing
countries due to several constraints. There is no single factor that
influences execution, and there is no single theory that explains
execution problems.
The context with in which policy is formulated and implemented
highly matters. Those developing countries who allowed citizens to
participate in the policy process are showing encouraging results.
The institutions, the participants, the resources available to the
participants, the weight of state power in the society, the capacity of
the state to do its will all, the content of the policy, and the
configuration of issues vary significantly. He stated that in most of the developing
countries, regimes legitimacy is questionable. Power is concentrated in government and societies
are powerless. The state capacity to make and implement polices is very low, participant in the
policy process are fewer than the developed countries, the policy process in not inclusive and some sectors of the society are
hardly participate at all; the channels for participation are less well established and less clearly prescribed; information
for policy making is much scarcer; foreign models are much more common. This implies that the policy environment in
Ethiopia is not conducive for citizens and stakeholders to participate freely in matters affecting them.
The Policy Clinic can assist the public sector in evaluating its performance and identifying the factors which
contribute to its service delivery outcomes as the Ethiopian Government’s major challenge is to become more effective..
The Policy Clinic is uniquely oriented towards providing its users with the ability to draw causal connections between
the choice of policy priorities, the resourcing of those policy objectives, the programmes designed to implement them, the
services actually delivered and their ultimate impact on communities.
Key words: public policy, policy analysis, policy formulation, policy execution, citizen participation, policy clinic
Yetnayet Ayele, Civic Engagement in Policy Making and Execution - Submitted to Dr. Costantinos
Berhutesfa Costantinos As a partial fulfilment for the requirements of the PhD Course Comparative
Public Policy (PPMP 906), AAU, School of Graduate Studies, College of Business & Economics, PhD
Programme in Public Management and Policy August 2011
Costantinos
1. Introduction
1.1. Public policy
Public policy is the principled guide to action taken by the administrative executive branches of
the state with regard to a class of issues in a manner consistent with law and institutional customs. In
general, the foundation is the pertinent national and substantial constitutional law and implementing
legislation such as the US Federal code. Further substrates include both judicial interpretations and
regulations which are generally authorised by legislation. Other scholars define it as a system of
"courses of action, regulatory measures, laws, and funding priorities concerning a given topic
promulgated by a governmental entity or its representatives. Public policy is commonly embodied in
constitutions, legislative acts, and judicial decisions.
Policymaking is the process of defining societal goals and objectives, and the purpose is to solve
social problems. Policymaking is a political process; governments address public problems through
policies and translate their political vision through them. The policy process involves several stages,
stakeholders and negotiations between these stakeholders. Agenda setting, policy formulation,
decision making, execution and evaluation are the common stages in the policy making process of
many countries. The execution stage is the core stage in public policy since policy is useless if it is not
implemented. Good policy choice and effective execution improves societal welfare, on the other
hand poor execution adversely affects peoples livelihood and worsen the relationship between
governments and citizens. Policy execution is not a simple mechanical task, it is dynamic, involves
complex process, operates at several levels and influenced by many actors, stakeholders, and is
challenging.
The responsibility for policy execution rests highly on government bureaucracy; however,
nongovernmental actors and citizens are also responsible. Gaps between policies and executions are
common problems of many countries; however, the problem is severe in Ethiopia due to several
constraints related to uncertainty in the policy environment, capacity (financial, human, information
and others), and the nature of the policy process which is usually hasty, dominated by governments
and done with minimum consultation with stakeholders. Less involvement of stakeholders in the
policy process implies that policy problems may not be clearly defined and proper methods of
executions may not be chosen due to lack of policy relevant information and absence of sufficient
deliberations and policy dialogues. Obviously, the framework of policy making in Ethiopia is different
from that of the developed ones and this difference have made Ethiopia to have poor records of
policy execution. Increased complexities of policy problems facing governments have made execution
even more difficult.
1.2. Government actions
Shaping public policy is a complex and multifaceted process that involves the interplay of
numerous individuals and interest groups competing and collaborating to influence policymakers to
act in a particular way. These individuals and groups use a variety of tactics and tools to advance their
aims, including advocating their positions publicly, attempting to educate supporters and opponents,
and mobilising allies on a particular issue.
1.3. As an academic discipline
As an academic discipline, public policy brings in elements of many social science fields and
concepts, including economics, sociology, political economy, programme evaluation, policy analysis,
and public management, all as applied to problems of governmental administration, management, and
operations. At the same time, the study of public policy is distinct from political science or economics,
in its focus on the application of theory to practice. While the majority of public policy degrees are
masters and doctoral degrees, several universities also offer undergraduate education in public policy.
A policy is a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is an
intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. Policies are generally adopted by the Board of
or senior governance body within an organisation whereas procedures or protocols would be
developed and adopted by senior executive officers. Policies can assist in both subjective and
objective decision making. Policies to assist in subjective decision making would usually assist senior
management with decisions that must consider the relative merits of a number of factors before
making decisions and as a result are often hard to objectively test e.g. work-life balance policy. In
1 | Policy Making & Execution and Civic Engagement
Costantinos
contrast policies to assist in objective decision making are usually operational in nature and can be
objectively tested e.g. password policy.
The term may apply to government, private sector organisations and groups, and individuals.
Presidential executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order are all
examples of policy. Policy differs from rules or law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviours
(e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that
are most likely to achieve a desired outcome. Policy or policy study may also refer to the process of
making important organisational decisions, including the identification of different alternatives such
as programmes or spending priorities, and choosing among them on the basis of the impact they will
have. Policies can be understood as political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms
arranged to reach explicit goals. In public corporate finance, a critical accounting policy is a policy for
a firm/company or an industry which is considered to have a notably high subjective element, and
that has a material impact on the financial statements.
1.4. Impact
The intended effects of a policy vary widely according to the organisation and the context in
which they are made. Broadly, policies are typically instituted to avoid some negative effect that has
been noticed in the organisation, or to seek some positive benefit. Corporate purchasing policies
provide an example of how organisations attempt to avoid negative effects. Many large companies
have policies that all purchases above a certain value must be performed through a purchasing
process. By requiring this standard purchasing process through policy, the organisation can limit waste
and standardize the way purchasing is done. Policies frequently have side effects or unintended
consequences. Because the environments that policies seek to influence or manipulate are typically
complex adaptive systems (e.x. governments, societies, large companies), making a policy change can
have counterintuitive results. For example, a government may make a policy decision to raise taxes,
in hopes of increasing overall tax revenue. Depending on the size of the tax increase, this may have
the overall effect of reducing tax revenue by causing capital flight or by creating a rate so high that
citizens are deterred from earning the money that is taxed. (See the Laffer curve.)
The policy formulation process typically includes an attempt to assess as many areas of potential
policy impact as possible, to lessen the chances that a given policy will have unexpected or unintended
consequences. Because of the nature of some complex adaptive systems such as societies and
governments, it may not be possible to assess all possible impacts of a given policy.
Execution researchers of different generations have tried to identify factors that enhance or
impede execution. Accordingly, the focus of the classical researchers was mainly on administrative
issues. That of the second-generation researchers was on different approaches to execution: the top
down and the bottom up as success or failure factors. The focus of the third generation researchers
was on modelling of execution problems. They considered critical variables such as content of the
policy, the context with in which the policy is formulated and implemented, the commitment of the
policy deliverers, citizens and other stakeholders. They also considered the capacity in terms of
resource, trained work force, information and others, and on the influence of the clients and coalitions
or those target groups whose interests are enhanced or threatened by the policy. Recent execution
models are favouring the democratic approach to execution, however all researchers agree that there
is no single best theory of policy execution. Similar policies can be implemented differently in different
situation, context matters.
Today, governments in many countries are faced with complex and challenging problems such as
poverty, unemployment, environmental degradation, crimes and corruption. It is evident that
governments alone cannot solve these problems. They must be supported by citizens and all other
stakeholders to deal with such complex issues. Involvement by these parties in the process of
formulating and implementing policies is highly required. Collaboration, shared governance is
necessary to ensure more effective service delivery. The potential of civic engagement and the
resulting social capital as a resource and tool for public policy is gaining recognition among the policy
scholars, influential organs such as the World Bank, and other international organisations working on
development projects. Civic engagement has the potential of creating belongingness and social capital.

Costantinos
In many declarations, the United Nation has recognised the role of civic engagement for the
achievement of internationally agreed goals such as the SDGs.
Among the basic requirements of civic engagement are democracy, good governance system,
active and enlightened citizens who know their rights and obligations- who are willing to participate
in public affairs affecting their lives-, active civil society organisations who can aggregate communities
interests and serve as a channel to the voices of the poor and the vulnerable group, and committed
leadership. Engaging citizens in the policy process has some transaction costs, however, if guided by
principles it will give a long-term benefit. Civic engagement is a process, it is not an event, when it
becomes a culture and when it is assisted by technologies such as e-participation the cost may not be
felt much. This study intends to discuss concepts related to the policy execution, factors causing
execution problems in Ethiopia and the role of civic engagement to minimize execution problem.
1.4.1. Statement of the Problem:
Execution gaps or problems are observed when the desired results on the target beneficiaries are
not achieved. Execution gaps are common problems of many countries, however, are severe in
Ethiopia. The dismal records in poverty reduction efforts in many parts of the developing countries
are manifestations of policy execution problems. Poor executions are caused by several factors. The
policy making process of Ethiopia is dominated by government. It gives insufficient attention to the
role of citizens and other stakeholders’ participation, one of the reasons that widens the gap between
policy and execution.
1.4.2. Research Questions
The study intends to answer the following research questions:
What are the major factors affecting policy execution in Ethiopia?
In what way could the nature of the policy process in Ethiopia affect policy execution?
What is the role of civic engagement or participatory policy process for the improvement of policy execution?
1.4.3. Objectives of the Study:
The objectives of the study are to give an insight about the factors that affect policy execution, to see how the
policy environment of Ethiopia and the nature of the policy process affects policy execution, and to gain a better
understanding of the role of civic engagement or participatory policy process for improved policy execution
1.4.4. Methodology:
The study was conducted purely based on analysis secondary sources: books, articles, journals,
and internet sources.
1.4.5. Significance and scope of the Study:
Public policy execution affects everyone, positively or the other way. Therefore, this study has
both academic and practical importance. The scope of the study is limited to the discussion of policy
execution problems in Ethiopia and the role of civic engagement or participatory policy process for
improvement of policy execution. Not all aspects of execution problems in Ethiopia are addressed
here; hence, this should not be taken as an exhaustive study.
1.4.6. Organisation of the Study:
The study is organised in to three chapters. The first chapter deals with the introductory part. The
second chapter deals with the concept of policy execution in which the policy process, the
responsibility for policy execution, factors affecting execution as identified by different generations
of execution researchers, the policy environment, the nature of the policy process and policy
execution in Ethiopia, and trends in policy execution are discussed. The third chapter deals with
concepts of civic engagement, its historical background, definitions, requirements, the rationale and
benefits, its role for policy execution, the principles of engagement, the challenges, and few examples
showing successes achieved through citizens involvement in the policy process.
2. Public Policy
2.1. Policy cycle
In political science, the policy cycle is a tool used for the analysing of the development of a policy
item. It can also be referred to as a stagist approach, stages heuristic or stages approach. It is a fiction rather
than the actual reality of how policy is created, but has been influential in how people look at policy
in general. It was developed as a theory from Harold Lasswell's work. One standardised version
Costantinos
includes the following stages: Agenda setting (Problem identification), Policy Formulation, Adoption,
Execution, and Evaluation. An eight step policy cycle is developed in detail in The Australian Policy
Handbook by Peter Bridgman and Glyn Davis: (now with Catherine Althaus in its 4th edition - 5th
edition in press)
Issue identification, Policy analysis, Policy instrument development, Consultation (which
permeates the entire process), Coordination, Decision, Execution and Evaluation. The Althaus,
Bridgman & Davis model is heuristic and iterative. It is intentionally normative and not meant to be
diagnostic or predictive. Policy cycles are typically characterised as adopting a classical approach.
Accordingly some postmodern academics challenge cyclical models as unresponsive and unrealistic,
preferring systemic and more complex models. They consider a broader range of actors involved in
the policy space that includes civil society organisations, the media, intellectuals, think tanks or [policy
research institutes, corporations, lobbyists, etc.
2.2. Content
Policies are typically promulgated through official written documents. Policy documents often
come with the endorsement or signature of the executive powers within an organisation to legitimize
the policy and demonstrate that it is considered in force. Such documents often have standard formats
that are particular to the organisation issuing the policy. While such formats differ in form, policy
documents usually contain certain standard components including:
A purpose statement, outlining why the organisation is issuing the policy, and what its
desired effect or outcome of the policy should be.
An applicability and scope statement, describing who the policy affects and which actions
are impacted by the policy. The applicability and scope may expressly exclude certain people,
organisations, or actions from the policy requirements. Applicability and scope is used to
focus the policy on only the desired targets, and avoid unintended consequences where
possible.
An effective date which indicates when the policy comes into force. Retroactive policies are
rare, but can be found.
A responsibilities section, indicating which parties and organisations are responsible for
carrying out individual policy statements. Many policies may require the establishment of
some ongoing function or action. For example, a purchasing policy might specify that a
purchasing office be created to process purchase requests. This office would be responsible
for ongoing actions. Responsibilities often include identification of any relevant oversight /
governance structures.
Policy statements indicating the specific regulations, requirements, or modifications to
organisational behaviour that the policy is creating. Policy statements are extremely diverse
depending on the organisation and intent, and may take almost any form. Some policies may
contain additional sections, including:
Background, indicating any reasons, history, and intent that led to the creation of the policy, which may
be listed as motivating factors. This information is often quite valuable when policies must be evaluated or
used in ambiguous situations, just as the intent of a law can be useful to a court when deciding a case that
involves that law.
Providing unambiguous definitions for terms and concepts found in the policy document.
2.3. Typologies
Policy addresses the intent of the organisation, whether government, business, professional, or
voluntary. Policy is intended to affect the 'real' world, by guiding the decisions that are made. Whether
they are formally written or not, most organisations have identified policies. Policies may be classified
in many different ways. The following is a sample of several different types of policies broken down
by their effect on members of the organisation.
2.3.1. Distributive policies
Distributive policies extend goods and services to members of an organisation, as well as
distributing the costs of the goods/services amongst the members of the organisation. Examples
include government policies that impact spending for welfare, public education, highways, and public
safety, or a professional organisation's benefits plan.
Costantinos
2.3.2. Regulatory policies
Regulatory policies, or mandates, limit the discretion of individuals and agencies, or otherwise
compel certain types of behaviour. These policies are generally thought to be best applied when good
behaviour can be easily defined and bad behaviour can be easily regulated and punished through fines
or sanctions. An example of a fairly successful public regulatory policy is that of a speed limit.
2.3.3. Constituent policies
Constituent policies create executive power entities, or deal with laws. Constituent policies also
deal with Fiscal Policy in some circumstances.
2.3.4. Miscellaneous policies
Policies are dynamic; they are not just static lists of goals or laws. Policy blueprints have to be
implemented, often with unexpected results. Social policies are what happens 'on the ground' when
they are implemented, as well as what happens at the decision making or legislative stage. When the
term policy is used, it may also refer to:
Official government policy (legislation or guidelines that govern how laws should be put into
operation)
Broad ideas and goals in political manifestos and pamphlets
A company or organisation's policy on a particular topic. For example, the equal opportunity
policy of a company shows that the company aims to treat all its staff equally.
The actions the organisation actually takes may often vary significantly from stated policy. This
difference is sometimes caused by political compromise over policy, while in other situations it is
caused by lack of policy execution and enforcement. Implementing policy may have unexpected
results, stemming from a policy whose reach extends further than the problem it was originally crafted
to address. Additionally, unpredictable results may arise from selective or idiosyncratic enforcement
of policy. Types of policy analysis include:
Causal (resp. non-causal),
Deterministic (resp. stochastic, randomised and sometimes non-deterministic),
Index, Memory-less (e.g. non-stationary),
Opportunistic (resp. non-opportunistic),
Stationary (resp. non-stationary).
These qualifiers can be combined. For example you could have a stationary-memory-less-index policy.
3. The Execution Stage in the Policy Process:
Public policy is formulated to solve social problems however; it is useless if it is not implemented.
Policy execution is one of the core but complex and challenging stages in the policy process. It
involves many actors, stakeholders and operates at various levels. This section presents concepts
related to public policy, policy execution, execution researches conducted to identify factors that
enhance or impede execution, the policy environment, the nature of the policy process and policy
execution and trends in policy execution.
3.1. What is Public Policy?
The term policy can be defined in many ways depending on the perspective of each definer. It
can also be understood in several ways as it is used by people to refer to many concepts, i.e., it may
be used as a label for a field of study, as an expression of general purpose or desired state of affairs,
as specific proposals, as decisions of government, as formal authorisation, as, a programme, as an
output, as an outcome, as a theory or model and as a process. For the purpose of this study, this
comprehensive definition is taken; “Public policy is a purposive and consistent course of action produced as a
response to a perceived problem of constituency, formulated by a specific political process, adopted and implemented and
enforced by a public agency”. From this definition, it is clear that public policies are formulated to solve
societal problems, policies are outcomes of a political process, and governments respond to societal
problems through public policies.
Public policies have considerable impact on people’s livelihoods. While many factors influence
the developmental record of countries, it is certainly the case that good policy choice and their
effective execution are major explanatory variables. The secret behind the marvellous success of the
high performing East and Southeast Asian economies, the so called tiger economies is nothing but
Costantinos
the choice of good policies and effective execution. The choice of good policies and effective
execution are major factors that made these economies to register declining inequality, improved
human welfare; for example, increase in life expectancy from 56 years in 1960 to 71 years in 1990,
and decrease in the proportion of population living in absolute poverty from 58 percent to 17 percent
over the same period.
However, for Ethiopia, coming out of poverty is a major challenge and this is a manifestation of
partly deficient policy and poor execution. It is important to observe that, no matter how they are
good, policies are not useful if they are not implemented; execution is at the heart of public policy.
Richard Curtain, (2000) in his article titled “Good Public Policy Making”, stated the following about
features of good public policy. A good public policy is one that is effective (achieve its goals) and efficient (do so
in a way that achieves the greatest possible benefit at the least possible cost). Achievement of policy goals through proper
execution is the basic criteria of a good public policy. The public will benefit more when polices are actually carried
out/implemented, as stated in the policy statement. It is widely believed that good execution improves the quality of life
of citizens and the trust between citizens and the government. However, execution is complex and challenging; it should
not be viewed as a simple, mechanical administrative task.
3.2. The policy process
Policy can be seen as a process involving series of decisions. It involves many processes that can
be described in phases/stages. As per Jessica R. Adolino et al, the five-stage models of the policy
process that are common to all countries are agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making, policy execution
and policy evaluation (Adolino, 2007). These stages are briefly described as follows:
3.2.1. Agenda Setting:
Agenda setting is the first stage in the policy making process. The policy agenda is the list of issues
or problems that need government’s attention, however, as needs and demands of people are many,
governments may give attention only some of these issues/problems. The potential lists of policy
issues are known as “systemic agenda”, for which the public is aware of and may be discussing; and
of these lists, those that have the attention of the government are known as “institutional agenda”.
There are different models in agenda setting.
The outside initiation model, is the one in which organised interest groups rise citizens awareness
and lobby the government to get their concerns to the institutional agenda.
The inside initiation model is where interest groups attempt to influence government
policymakers almost entirely in private meetings.
The mobilisation model is where governments initiate policy (when the government needs to
address an issue, which is not currently visible).
The consolidation model is in which the government places an issue on the institutional agenda
that already is visible on the systemic agenda.
These models can also be associated with the political system: The outside initiation model can be
associated with pluralist democracies; the inside initiation model with the corporatist democracies; and
the mobilisation model with the authoritarian (and, especially, totalitarian model).
3.2.2. Policy Formulation:
This stage involves strong debates about the nature of the problem itself and is a stage where
proposed solutions and programmes are developed and evaluated. Policy alternatives that are
technically not feasible and politically unacceptable are rejected. Government plays crucial role in the
policy formulation process.
3.2.3. Decision Making:
In this stage, decisions are taken to create a new policy, or to revise the existing policy or take no
action. Policy decisions are taken by appropriate elected or appointed government officials. Hence,
participants are few. However, in the case of referendum, many people are involved in decisions.
3.2.4. Policy Execution:
The execution stage of the policy process is an operational phase where policy is actually translated
into action with the intention of solving some public problem. It is mainly about the application of
the policy in to the problem, a process by which public policies are put into effect. Since this study

Costantinos
focuses on policy execution, concepts related to this stage of the public policy process will be
discussed under many topics.
4. Policy Execution Research
Execution studies are to be found at the intersection of public administration, organisational
theory, public management research, and political science studies (Schofield and Sausman 2004: 235)
cited in Jack Rabinh et al (2007:89) (Najam, ibid, loc cit.). In the same source, it is stated that Goggin
and his colleagues (1990) identified three generations of execution research. Execution studies
emerged in the 1970s within the US, as a reaction to growing concerns over the effectiveness of wide-
ranging reform programmes.
4.1. Generation One
The first/classical generation of execution research began with the assumption that execution
would happen “automatically” once the appropriate policies had been authoritatively proclaimed. The
Weberian ideal bureaucracy assumes an ordered system with highly rationalised, legalistic,
authoritarian, and hieratical structure with small group of decision makers at the top to create policy
and subordinates at the bottom dutifully carry it out. The Woodrow Wilson thesis is that policy
formulation and execution are and should be two separate and distinct activities; with the latter being
neutral, professionalised, and non-political. The Frederic Taylor’s is the principles of Scientific Management,
the focus of all of which is on organisational hierarchy, the separation of politics and efficiency are
influential works in the first/classical generation of execution research. The basic assumption was that
once the government (the politics) formulates an efficient policy, the administration (the machine)
will formulate it, and the desired result will not be far from what is expected (Najam, ibid). Though
much has been done by these scholars, they are criticised for their optimistic approach that viewed
execution problems as simple, mechanical and administrative chores.
4.2. Generation Two
The above mentioned study (Najam, ibid) showed that, in the Post World War II, the limitations
of the classical models began to be revealed and it became evident that public policy worked less as
an efficient and orderly machine and more as a process of “muddling through”, Lindblom (1959)
cited in the above study. A number of case studies showed that, in United States, the grand policies
of the 1960s were not working the way they were ‘supposed’ to under the classical model. Soon,
scholars of public administration start to show that administration and execution were far more
complex, and political, than what is suggested by the classical model. Pressman and Wildavsky 1973,
cited in the above study, stated the complexity of execution as:
It is hard enough to design public policies and programmes that look good on paper. It is harder still to
formulate them in words and slogans that resonate pleasingly in the ears of political leaders and constituencies to
which they are responsive. And it is excruciatingly hard to implement them in a way that pleases anyone at all,
including the supposed beneficiaries or clients”. The second generation thus sets out to challenge the classical
assumptions, and explained execution ‘failure’ through detailed case studies, and demonstrated that execution, much
like policy formulation, was a complex political process rather than a mechanical administrative one. Execution
researches in this generation were case specific and overly pessimistic however, their contribution is vital. The two
theoretical streams of thoughts, the top down approach, which assumes hierarchical control, focuses on legally-
mandated aspects, and underestimates the politics of lower level actors and organisational interactions and
bargaining; and the bottom up approach which considers lower level bureaucrats as key determinants of policy
execution are contributions of the researchers and scholars of this generation.
The debate between top-down and bottom up perspectives on execution is not yet concluded.
Both perspectives provide useful insights into the execution process; both demonstrate significant
explanatory strengths as well as weaknesses. each may be more relevant to particular sets of cases than
to others; in some cases both may be equally relevant, albeit, at different stages of the complex and
dynamic execution process. Finally, in the works of Knoepfel and Weidner, 1982; Elmore, 1985;
Sabatier and Hanf, 1985; Sabatier, 1986; Goggin, et al., 1990, cited in the above study, suggested the
need to evolve to new models of execution which incorporate the strengths of both perspectives.
4.3. Generation Three
In the study mentioned above, (Najam, ibid) it is stated that the third (analytic) generation, was
more concerned with understanding how execution works in general and how its prospects might be
Costantinos
improved. Many execution models were formulated by scholars. Those that are relevant to this study
are mentioned briefly. The first was that of Thomas B. Smith (1973), model cited in the same study,
which is developed based on developing countries context and views execution as the interaction
between four components:
the idealised policy and the patterns of interactions that the policy wants to induce;
the target group which is called to change its behaviour;
implementing organisation structure, leadership, and capacity; and
environmental factors or the constraining corridor through which the execution of policy must be enforced;
The feedback from the interactions between these four components in the execution process will
be used as an input to redesign the policy. This model is closer to the bottom up approach.
Another one is from Van Meter and Van Horn (1975) cited in the same study that viewed
execution as a top-down process and attempted to consolidate the emerging literature into one model.
They identified three causes as execution problems “subordinates don't know what their superiors
want, they can't do what their superiors want, or they refuse to do what their superiors want", and
labelled execution problems as problems of communication, capacity and implementer disposition.
Theodore Lowi's (1964) earlier work cited in the same study focuses on the nature of the policy itself
as critical to the success or failure of its execution. The model suggested six interrelated clusters of
variables: the relevance of policy standards and objectives; policy resources; inter-organisational
communication and enforcement activities; the characteristics of the implementing agencies; the
economic, social, and political environment affecting the implementing jurisdiction or organisation;
and the disposition of implementers for carrying out policy decisions.
Another model which is similar to Van Meter and Van Horn George model is the one suggested
by C. Edwards (1980) cited in the same study, identified four interacting and simultaneously operating
factors as factors influencing execution; these includes: communication, resources, dispositions, and
bureaucratic structure. Daniel A. Mazmanian and Paul A. Sabatier (1983) cited in the same study,
stated that policymaking is an iterative process of formulation, execution and reformulation, that can
be viewed from three quite different perspectives-the initial policymaker or the center, the field level
implementing officials or the periphery, and the actors at whom the programme is directed or the
target group.
They identified three clusters of factors affecting execution- tractability of the problems (some
social problems are simple and are much easier to deal with than others are), ability of policy makers
to structure execution, and non-statutory variables affecting execution (execution has an inherent
political dynamism of its own). They also tried to indicate necessary conditions for effective execution
as- clear and consistent objectives, adequate causal theory, legal structure to enhance compliance by
implementing officials and target groups, committed and skillful implementing officials, support of
interest groups and sovereigns, and changes in socio-economic conditions which do not substantially
undermine political support or causal theory.
Bottom up theorists used different labels for public service workers who interact directly with
citizens in the course of their jobs, and who have substantial discretion in the execution of their work.
It includes “front line workers” by Wilson (1967), “Policy deliverers” by Berman (1978) ", and “Street-
level bureaucrats” by Lipsky (1980) cited in the same study and in Jack Rabinh et al (2007). These
scholars considered these workers as central to the study of execution with others in the policy arena
that shape the context within which they make their discretionary judgments. These practitioners are
recognised as key determinants of execution success. Barrett and Fudge (1981) cited in the same study
proposed that execution should be seen as a political rather than a managerial process that happens through
the dynamic negotiation (and interactions) between and within: the (socio-economic) environmental
system, the political system, and the organisational (or administrative) system. They suggested that
policy-action relationship should be considered in a political context. It is to be treated as an
interactive and negotiative process-taking place over time between those seeking to put policy into
effect and those upon whom action depends.
Paul Berman's (1978) cited in the same study suggested that execution 'success' depends on the
complex interactions between the policy and its institutional setting, the effective power to determine
a policy's outcome rests not with the original policymakers but with the local policy deliverers, and
Costantinos
projects that are adapted to local conditions produce effective outcomes. Emphasis is on the need to
localize policies to ensure execution success. (Hanf, 1978, 1983) cited in the same study focused on
the role of local decision makers and factors such as socio-economic conditions, the 'pool' of relevant
actors, and the problem structure including the objective situation of the problem and the political
evaluation of its seriousness as a factor affecting policy execution.
4.4. Towards Combination of the two main Approaches
The trend is towards combining both top down and bottom up to explain factors influencing
policy execution. It is to be recalled from the above discussions that different scholars may have
differing assumptions on what constitutes successful policy execution. The two different assumptions
about factors influencing policy executions mentioned above are, the top down and the bottom up. The
top down approach assumes authoritative, hierarchical (i.e., Weberian) and therefore one need only
to minimize the communication distortions between that person (the principal) and his/her
subordinate agents in order to effect successful execution. It is more of a command and control
orientation type in which the policy making process is highly optimistic, hierarchical, centralised and
less inclusive. With this approach, policy makers are likely to impose policies, which may not reflect
the interests of the public (deLeon, 2002).
On the other hand, the bottom-up (street level) assumption suggests the inclusion of local
implementers in the policy making process. Because of their direct contact with citizens proponents
recognised street level bureaucrats as key to successful execution, argue for their inclusion in the
policy making process, promote the idea that street-level bureaucrats are less responsive to local
conditions and attitudes than are elected representatives is to misread seriously their professional
responsibilities. They also argued that effective execution occurred only when those who were
primarily affected were actively involved in the planning and execution of these programmes and
suggest that execution needed to be part and parcel of the policy formulation. Jack Rabinh et al
(2007:89) (Bhuyan, Jorgensen and Sharma, 2010) referred advocates of the democratic approach to
policy execution such as Hermasian-notion of deliberative democracy, which is based on the idea that
democratic decisions are the outcome of consensus-oriented, rational discourses among all affected
actors; (Habermas 1987; Miller 1993) in which it indicated that execution. Research scholars like de
Leon (2001) have taken up the notion of deliberative democracy, and interpretative approaches to
execution that is also built upon this model of democracy.
Another model indicated in this source is the model of “associative democracy” (Cohen and
Rogers 1992; Hirst 1994), which does not presuppose consensus-orientation and arguing, but tries to
develop democratic standards for the interactions of public and private actors within negotiation
systems or policy networks. It is based on the assumption that in modern societies, many nonelected
actors, especially interest associations, have a crucial say in policymaking. Rather than seeing this as a
danger for democracy, the authors suggest that these actors, to the extent that they are representatives
of certain groups of citizens and their common interests, can also add to the legitimacy of political
decisions. Thus, the democratic policy systems support moving away from top-down or bottom-up
dichotomies and emphasizes on how actors from different institutional contexts influence execution.
From the two approaches, however, the bottom up is conducive to the democratic approach and
is a reflection of communal interest. Rather than having a policy that is narrowly defined by few policy
makers at the top, which may not fully incorporate interests of various stakeholders, some studies
consider the bottom-up and the democratic policy execution to be more realistic and practical. It
suggests that the vox populi have a great deal of say about where they are going and how they choose
to arrive.19 If these two assumptions are taken differently, they can result in very different strategies
and outcomes; due to this, researchers suggest the combination of the two considering the different
views to be complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
The suggestion of combining the two approaches and focusing on the five interrelated variables,
the 5Cs, appeared in various research works. Richard Elmore (1985) cited in this study (Najam, ibid.)
in which it is stated that policy practitioners must consider both the legally mandated policy
instruments and resources (top down) and the environment in which the target groups operate
(bottom-up) because implementers are going to experience pressures from both sources and because
success will depend on combining the two. The work of Paul Sabatier (1986) (in Fenger and Klok)
Costantinos
who suggested an advocacy coalition framework of policy change, in some ways can be considered as glue that
binds the top-down and bottom-up approaches. This model shows how actors in the coalition groups
- people in various positions, from various public and private organisations who share a set of beliefs
and who seek to realize their common goals-influence the policy formulation and execution. Warwick
1982 cited in this study (Najam, ibid.) introduced a transaction model of execution in which seven
assumptions about execution are given.
Policy is important in establishing the parameters and directions of action, but it never determines the exact
course of execution,
formal organisation structures are significant but not deterministic,
the programme’s environment is a critical locus for transactions affecting execution,
the process of policy formulation and programme design can be as important as the product,
implementer discretion is universal and inevitable,
clients greatly influence the outcomes of execution and
execution is inherently dynamic;
The above discussions showed how execution is a complex, dynamic, operates at multi-level,
multi-actor, and a process influenced by many factors in the policy environment. Thus, it is not only
the approaches-top down and bottom up-that affects execution, but there are interrelated variables
that affects it. This study recognizes the existence of interacting variables influencing execution and
favours the democratic approach. The following topic briefly describes the five interrelated variables
(5C’s) that cause execution problems due to their relevance for this study.
4.5. The 5C Protocols - content, context, commitment, capacity, clients and coalitions
4.5.1. Content
Content of policy mainly consists of the goals to be achieved and the methods of achieving these
goals. If goals and methods are not clearly communicated, execution will suffer. This is consistent
with David Dery’s proposition about problem definition, mentioned in the article written by Arnost
Vesely (2007), i.e. public policy is formulated to solve public problems, and problems are recognised
as policy problems if it suggests methods or directions for solving the problem. As mentioned above,
the content of the policy consists of not only the goals to be achieved by the policy but also methods
of solving the problem; this in turn requires correct definition of problem and correct choice of
methods. The role of relevant policy information is immense for the enrichment of the content of
the policy, and actors and stakeholders can be seen as key sources for relevant policy information. In
other words, with participatory policymaking, contents of policies can be enriched and success will
be achieved.
4.5.2. Context
Context mainly refer to the institutional context –the institutional corridor through which
execution must pass. Warwick 1982 cited in this study (Najam, loc cit), stated that “the most common
difference between programmes that are carried out and those that fail is the former link policy
intentions to environmental realities whereas the latter proceed as if the environment were either
invariant or irrelevant”. Thus, it is essential to identify the key institutional actors influencing or being
influenced by the policy, tracing interest and power relationships between and within relevant
institutions, and recognizing the fact that institutions are influenced by the broader social, economic,
political and legal environment. This implies the issue of execution is not limited to administrative
concept it is complex and political.
The state-society relationship, which is a political issue, has an impact on the process of execution;
execution may vary considerably due to the nature of the state, authoritarian or open system. In open
system, elections impose a greater degree of responsiveness on both political and administrative
officials. It is also affected by the ideology, culture, political alliance, international events, and priorities
of political officials, success or failure in other related programme (the execution of some programmes
may depend on the success of other programmes). So, programmes similar in content may be
implemented differently because of the difference in the context in which they are implemented.
Most of the policies that work in developed countries may not work in Ethiopia because of the
difference in the context. For instance, failures of structural adjustment programmes in many parts

Costantinos
of Africa indicate that policies or programmes designed without considering the context in which
policy is to be implemented are not fruitful, and are simply wastage of resources.
4.5.3. Commitment
Commitment mainly refers to the commitment of the front-line workers/policy deliverers/street
level bureaucrats mentioned earlier. Michael Lipsky (1980) cited in the above study views street level
bureaucrats as effective policy makers and argued that their decisions, the routine they establish, and
the devices they invent to cope with uncertainties and work pressure effectively become the public
policies they carry out. Public policy is not best understood as made by legislators or the top
management, because in important ways it is actually made in the crowded offices and daily encounter
of street level workers. These workers have discretional powers when they implement policies.
Warwick (1982) cited in the same study also stated that implementers have discretionary power,
they can advance or destroy a programme. Thus, in the case of low implementer commitment, the
top-down control may work. However commitment should not be limited to front line workers, it
should also include commitment at all levels including regime level, state level, various stakeholders
and individual citizens level. For instance, if the state is not committed to transfer a resource for
execution of a certain programme, the programme will fail. If citizens and the business community
fail to pay tax, programmes will fail. If citizens and other stakeholders are not committed to involve
and support governments in the policymaking and execution or if they have belongingness to the
programmes, governments alone cannot achieve success in policy execution. Commitment of all
actors and stakeholders is essential.
4.5.4. Capacity:
It is evident that a minimum condition for successful execution is to have the requisite
administrative ability and the resources to implement the policy. Capacity is necessary at various levels.
For instance, at the state level-the capacity to formulate and enforce policy at individual citizens and
other stakeholders’ level- meaningful involvement in the policy making process demands capacities
such as the communication skill for individual citizens, the capacity to aggregate communities’ interest
for civil society organisation, leadership ability, etc.
4.5.5. Clients and Coalitions:
Recently, implantation scholars have recognised that, other than the governmental bureaucratic
mechanisms for implementing policy, the ultimate effectiveness of a policy execution also equally
depends on non-governmental actors, particularly the target groups to whom policy is to be delivered,
i.e. the clients. In other words, clients can speed, slow, stop or redirect execution (Warwick 1982)
cited in the same study. Coalitions of interest groups, opinion leaders, and other outside actors who
actively support or oppose a particular execution process are influential. Hence, it is the negotiation
or interplay between various actors, their interests and their strategies that influence ultimate
execution effectiveness. Thus in execution study, it is essential to identify key actors and stakeholders
that influence execution. The choice of specific actors or stakeholders normally depends on the
specific execution process. Issues of clients and coalitions have implication for the need for
participatory policy making, i.e. if the policymaking process is not participative, it may lack support
during execution process.
4.6. Policy environment the nature of the policy and execution in developing nations:
Countries are classified in to developed and developing mainly using the GNP, and alternatively
the human development index, in which not only the per capita income but also educational
attainment and life expectancy are considered. Developing countries are not similar in every aspect;
there are diversities among them; they are also classified based on income as low-income, middle-
income, newly industrialised, and oil exporting. However, they have common features and problems
such as low level of living, low levels of productivity, high population growth rate and dependency
burdens, dependence on agriculture and primary exports, imperfect market and incomplete
information, dependence and vulnerability in international relations. The policy environment, the
nature of the policy process and policy execution in developing countries will be discussed briefly.
Donald L. Horowiz, in his article titled “Is there a third world policy process?”, stated that the
systemic framework for policy making in developing countries including Asia, Africa and Latin
America, display marked difference from those of industrialised countries.
Costantinos
The institutions, the participants, the resources available to the participants, the
weight of state power in the society, the capacity of the state to do its will all, the content
of the policy, and the configuration of issues vary significantly. He stated that in most of
the developing countries, regimes legitimacy is questionable. Power is concentrated in
government and societies are powerless. The state capacity to make and implement
polices is very low, participant in the policy process are fewer than the developed
countries, the policy process in not inclusive and some sectors of the society are hardly
participate at all; the channels for participation are less well established and less clearly
prescribed; information for policy making is much scarcer; foreign models are much more
common (Horowitz, 1989). This implies that the policy environment in Ethiopia is not
conducive for citizens and stakeholders to participate freely in matters affecting them.
Dror, 1986, Grindle and Thomas 1991 cited in Mulugeta Abebe Wolde (2005) showed that in
Ethiopia policy elites or central minds of the government or central policymaking process system play
crucial role in the process of policy making. In the same work that citied (Dror, 1989 and Horowitz
1989), the prevalence of limited policy circles in developing countries as compared to the developed
ones is mentioned. In addition, the political executives in Ethiopia play a larger role in formulating
public policies than do the legislature and the public. Policies are largely formulated with little
consultation with relevant interests and societal groups as compared to the developed countries where
public opinions are major inputs for the policy process.
Smith 1973, 1985; Grindle 1980, Cloete 1991, cited in the same work. Many authoritarian
governments in developing countries prevent representations and organisations of interests through
formally established channels. In some cases interests may be well organised, but are unable to make
real influence through formal interactions with political leaders, in others, organisations may lack
access to policy makers, and have less capacity to exert influence on the decision making process
(Gindle and Thomas 1991) cited in the same work.
In their study about civic networks, legitimacy and the policy process in Mauritius, Barbara and
Terrance stated that in many developing countries including Africa, the policy agenda tends to be
dominated by government and nongovernmental groups with international ties, whose independence
from the government is not clearly defined, implying that the process is not inclusive. The basic reason
they cited is that the practice of public administration in most of the developing countries including
Africa was inherited from the colonial era, which was suppressive and characterised by secrecy,
restrictive measures and lack of access to information held by policy-making and policy-execution in
government institutions. Most governmental systems had emerged from a unilateral and “top-down”
approach to policy-making, which limits the public from gaining access to, and disseminating
information held by local government. Thus, the policy processes are not transparent and inclusive,
and this affects execution as the policy process lacks the necessary input and implementers lack
belongingness (Carroll & Carroll, 2002).
In his study of policy execution in Nigeria, one of the developing countries in Africa, Danie
Edevbaro indicated that policy making and execution in developing countries is a challenging task as
in many of them the environment within which these policies had been made and implemented are
characterised by uncertainties. Social unrest, political instability, the uncompleted democratic
experiments, corruption are some of the problems exacerbating uncertainties. These factors erode the
policy execution capacity of the government (Edevbaro, 1996).
In another study, the policy process in developing countries is also described as informal, non-
transparent and non-inclusive. A recent study (Court, Mendizabal, Osborne & Young, 2006) carried
out governance assessments in 16 developing countries accounting for 51% of the world’s population,
civil society organisations input to the policy making process is generally low in general. The study
showed that, many developing countries have contexts that constrain civil society organisations work
and engagement in policy process. The study also showed that, there is still a tendency for some
governments to arrest or intimidate citizens who propagate views different from those in power. More
generally, policy-making processes are not transparent or open for citizens to participate or they are
only open or responsive to the needs of certain elites or groups. Since policy processes are inherently

Costantinos
political, the political context is crucial for citizens/civil society’s involvement in the policy process,
in which developing countries have poor records.
Other studies have also shown that policy execution is the most difficult task in many developing
countries, and these countries have poor records of execution. In one study, it is indicated that, during
the 1990s several alarming reports have been filed concerning policy failures in Third World countries
and the major problems connected to this were the economic and political conditions in these
countries (Hunter, 2018). In the third world, policy execution problem is a critical problem, a
profound weakness exists in the state administrative machinery and there is a severe lack of resources,
which undermines programme execution. Plans may be formulated, but one cannot assume that they
have been or will be implemented effectively. The inability to get things done, to have ideas and
decisions implemented is a major problem (Brynard, 2005).
Execution gaps or problems have many implications to Africa. in one study it is stated that the
problems of poverty, illiteracy, and disease, the glaring inequalities between sub-regions, races, and
ethnic peoples, and the general disillusionment over the rate of change all help to account for the gap
between aspiration and reality, it means between policy intent and policy action/execution. The same
study showed that in addition to the structural difficulties besetting policymaking organisations in
developing lands there are the constraints which limit their capacity for effective action, including
factors such as the ability to mobilize sufficient human and material resources, to secure reliable
information, to manage interest group demands, to cope with the "exogenous variable," and so forth
(Ibid).
Daniel Evebaro stated that, in some developing countries especially in Africa, a number of
countries are without governments capable of formulating or implementing coherent policy or
providing basic services because of political disorder. In some cases, the geographical writ of
governments is so limited that they are unable to implement national policies in a meaningful sense.
In a number of other countries, extended and unresolved political crises have rendered governments
increasingly ineffective. In the face of such political stalemate or political transitions of uncertain
outcome, the scope for coherent policy is severely constrained. In many African countries, under the
authoritarian regimes, the concentration of power in the hands of the state has risked democracy
(Evebaro: Ibid).
Florence E. Etta and Laurent Elder 2005, mentioned poor execution of policies has been
mentioned as one of the main weaknesses in Kenya, one of the developing countries in Africa. The
study showed that in Kenya, the policy formulation is dominated by state elites, the political circle is
exclusive (one party system), there is low involvement of the private sector and civil society in policy
formulation. Since the long period of single-party rule has created a culture of fear and passiveness in
national policy issue, the policy process is not inclusive which resulted in a poor execution of policies
(Etta and Elder, 2005).
The policy formulation and execution in Nigeria has been a risky affair and policy failure has been common.
This is because of civil war, coups, frequent change of governments, the uncompleted democratic experimentation and
above all corruption, which eroded the public’s trust on policy implementers (Evebaro: Ibid).
Various studies focused on Africa showed that policy-making processes are dominated by
government and are not participatory, and this has caused execution problems. Few examples
referring to key policies are here to have a deeper understanding about the severity of the problem.
Assessment of poverty reduction strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa, focusing on the case of Malawi
showed that, the poverty reduction strategy was formulated with less involvement of stakeholders.
Even initially stakeholders were left out from the formulation, monitoring and evaluation process;
there was no sense of ownership of the programme, the idea comes from outside the country (it is
donor driven, that do not take the countries context in to account) and this led to execution problems
(Boloto, Chirwa & Toska, 2009). The population policy in many African countries, which is believed
to be helpful in poverty reduction, faced execution problem not only by factors such as shortage of
resources but also due to the non-participatory process of the policy formulation.
In the study made by African Development Bank Group’s policy on population and strategies for
execution, it is stated that “Insufficient decentralisation of population activities and limited
involvement of population at the grass-root level in the process of formulation and execution of
Costantinos
population programme (African Development Bank, 2000). In his study of environmental policy
execution in developing counties, Jose Antonio Puppim explored that among many constraints that
created difficulty of policy execution, overlooking the importance of participation at local level as one
reason and proposed the decentralisation of execution into the hands of development-oriented
agencies (Puppim, 2008).
A study conducted by the OECD Development Centre in 2011, on trade support service of some
African countries including Kenya and Ethiopia, mentioned the existence of mismatch between
private sector’s needs and government policies as fundamental governance problems. The study have
also mentioned that minimal involvement of the private sector in policy making as a common feature
in these countries and is confirmed by recent case studies on enterprise networks in Africa, pointing
to the virtual non-existence of established processes for public-private dialogues on trade issues
(Bonaglia & Fukasaku, 2002). Jan-Erik Lane & Svante Ersson, in their study on policy execution in
poor countries have also showed that, discrepancies between policy and execution are largely caused
by unrealistic policies, from absence of people driven processes and lack of expertise” (Lane &
Ersson, 2004).
The points mentioned above indicates that if policies are not people driven, in other words, if the
policy process is not participatory and inclusive, execution will be hampered because it is likely that
the policy will be unrealistic and may not address the real problems of the people. This also means
that, if the process is not inclusive, it will be difficult to define the policy problem correctly, and
incorrect definition of problems leads to incorrect solution and the real problems will be left unsolved.
Such empirical studies imply that with non-participatory policy making processes, it will be difficult
for African and other developing countries to ensure success in policy execution and get rid of
poverty. In sum, execution is complex and challenging and a gap between formulated policies and
execution is a major problem in developing countries. Poorly designed policies
policies with no clear goal, government domination in policy formulation,
lack of public support, weak administrative capacity of the government at various levels,
lack of financial and other resources,
inadequate coordination between implementing agencies and levels of government,
lack of concern of front-line workers (the bureaucracy) who are not convinced of the
programme that implement it with less enthusiasm are widely cited as reasons for poor
executions.
Directly or indirectly, contextual factors such as political instability and low level of economic
development or the policy environment can be cited as major factors that impede execution of policies
especially in the Third World countries.
This gives an insight about how the policy environment including the quality of governance in a
given country affects policy execution. Therefore, in societies characterised by political instability it is
likely for policy execution to be poor. Hence, it is common to observe wider gaps between policy
formulation and execution in developing countries where the mentioned problems causing poor
execution are enormous. Another point is since many African countries are dependent on aid, which
implies that they are prone to donor driven policies, which lack local ownership and difficult to
implement. Thus, the issue of getting rid of poverty and political conflict requires good policy choice
and effective execution.
This paper among other issues focuses on execution problem resulted from non-inclusive policy
processes, favours civic engagement, and participatory policy making as an ideal strategy to improve
execution. This requires establishment of good governance system as a prerequisite, which creates
an environment in which citizens and all other stakeholders actively and freely involve in the policy
process affecting their lives, collaborate with their governments for the improvement of the quality
of life, and enables countries to marshal their human and social capital and other scarce resources.
The move from the concept of “Government” to “Governance” is showing that it is difficult for
governments to implement polices without the active involvement of citizens and other stakeholders
in the policy process. Therefore, governments, citizens and all other stakeholders in developing
countries should show commitment towards the establishment of good governance system.
4.7. Trends in policy formulation and execution and public choice
Costantinos
Trends show that many factors are urging governments around the world to improve the policy
making and execution process, so as to ensure equity and improved quality of life of their citizens.
The democratisation process going on in many countries, pressures from the international community
to achieve agreed goals such as the SDGs’ and the increasing demand and awareness of the public
about governance have made governments to look for strategies that are helpful to improve the
execution process.
Petrus Brynar’s in his study of the policy making process in the Okavango River Basin stated that
since the mid-1990’s, policy making exercises require participation and public choice, in which direct
representation, empowerment and active decision making are essential. He goes on to say “if
development is defined as the capacity to make rational choices, the participatory nature of policy
process is clearly of importance as opportunities to exercise choices and to explore rational options
should be utilised by policy-making processes” (Brynard, Brynard, 2003). Thus, participatory
policymaking is being considered as a strategy to minimize execution problems. The following authors
cited the same study defined public opinion in various ways: Maddox and Fuquay (1981:155) as
“consisting of articulated group attitude.” Mannheim (1950:142) defined the concept as
more than the sum total of effects produced by the media or by propaganda; as moods and attitudes which are
the results of contacts in groups, clubs or on the street and not produced through manipulation by authorities”;
Anderson (1979:15) defined public opinion as “the formal articulation of the beliefs, the views held by the public
at large about political issues;
Key (1961:14) describes public opinion as consisting of “those opinions held by private persons
which government find it prudent to heed”. Runny (1966:207) defined public opinion as “the sum of
opinions known to public officials and which will be taken into account by the authorities” The trend
is towards a more democratic approach to policy analysis, wherein constituents have a greater voice
regarding the policies that will affect them. Democracy in this sense is direct or indirect popular
involvement (i.e., participation by individuals or by their representatives). In the context of social
capital, public participation is gaining recognition as a generic resource and instrument of public policy
and a potential source of improvement in society (Montgomery & Inkeles, 2001).
The top-down orientation described earlier is less democratic in its approach than is the bottom-
up perspective. Moreover, Schneider and Ingram (1997) cited in Peter de Leon et al., stress that top
downers are typically far removed from the target population's perspective, basing their understanding
of citizen needs and wishes on surveys and focus groups rather than on contacts with citizens
themselves. The psychological distance between top-down policy makers and citizens is even greater
for those groups who are considered to be dependent or deviant. Furthermore, if local officials do
not pay attention to the needs and opinions of target populations, they may soon find themselves out
of touch; if leaders need public support, to pursue various goals, they have to be responsive to their
constituencies. These points showed that the bottom up approach is closer to the participatory
democratic approach.
In his article titled “Good Public Policy Making”, Richard Curtain (2000), stated that inclusive
policy processes are believed to result in a better execution. Thus, in setting policy goals, policy makers
should involve end users to have a comprehensive understanding of the environment and identify the
society’s needs to be addressed by the policy. This helps policy makers to ensure that the process has
taken full account of the needs and experience of all those likely to be affected by them, whether they
are individuals or groups, families, businesses or community organisations. Good policy requires
involving those outside government in policy making which means consulting with those who are the
target of the policy, outside experts, and those who are to implement the policy.
These days, in many parts of the world, there is a growing interest in the inclusion of stakeholders
in the policy development and execution process. This is justified on the ground that increased public
participation in the execution process helps the government to improve the quality of
decisions/execution by narrowing the information and knowledge gap of implementers and reducing
uncertainties. Thus, meaningful public participation is believed to increase communication between
the government and the public, minimize uncertainties, increase the knowledge of decision makers
about the nature of the problem and improve the quality of their decisions which in cumulative
reflects improved execution. The idea of public participation is consistent with the concepts of social
Costantinos
capital and civic engagement, which are believed to be a useful strategy of increasing the likelihood of
successful policy execution and building trust between governments and the public. Concepts related
to civic engagement will be discussed in brief in the following chapter.
Recently, the concept of good governance and civic engagement (also viewed as citizens and other
stakeholder’s participation) has received much attention from development agencies. Many
international conferences have emphasised the need to mobilize the Civil Society to attain the
Millennium Development Goals. The United Nations, in its 1996 General Assembly Resolution
50/225 emphasised the value of strengthening the collaboration between the different actors in the
civil society, private and public sectors, to support all phases in the development process (UN, 2005).
To explore initiatives that support implementing the SDGs, the United Nations has embarked on a
programme of work for linking citizens firmly to various aspects of participatory governance.
Participation is recognised as an important component of governance reform (Jocelyne, Hon and
Bourgon, 2007).
In the process of coordinating efforts towards the achievement of the SDGs, development
agencies came to realize the flaw that the concerns of the most vulnerable and the marginalised groups
are often left out of the development planning process. In such instances, the needs of the poor do
not get included in the plan formulation and the resource allocation fails to contribute towards the
development objectives of the poverty alleviation and socio-economic equality. This understanding
helped them to shift towards inclusive planning. Development agencies usually influence
governments to play ‘enabling role’ for the people to participate in public issues.
The United nations Millennium Summit of 2000 adopted the UN Millennium declaration, which
among other things identifies “Human Rights, Democracy, and Good Governance” as its priority
policy objectives for the 21st century. Many international organisations including the United nations
Development programme (UNDP), UN Office of the High Commission for Human Rights (UN-
OHCHR), the World bank, the International Monetary fund (IMF), world centre on governance
research and OECD have been working on the theme of good governance. The outcome of these
efforts is commitment to establish good governance everywhere, application of good governance
criteria in providing aids to least developed countries (Mulat, 2009). These efforts show it is a
requirement for all member state countries including Africa to establish good governance system.
Based on many empirical studies in various development policy related works, influential
organisations such as the World Bank seem to recognize the inefficiency of top down approach alone
and proposed decentralisation, local government reform, and civic participation to enhance
development effectiveness. Measures such as public sector reforms, decentralisation, devolution and
related activities that are being taken worldwide are aimed at reducing the gap between citizens,
making government more closely to people and combining government and citizen’s effort to reduce
execution gaps and improve peoples’ livelihood. The move towards administrative and political
decentralisation of government structures thus show a good prospect for civic engagement or the
new space created for citizens to engage in the policy process.
Encouraging citizens’ participation is an element of good governance; it improves information
flow, accountability and gives a voice to those most directly affected by public policy. In addition,
citizens’ participation allows timely identification of societal needs and priorities and the efficient
allocation of resources to address them. Thus, countries that are able to ensure active participation of
citizens and other stakeholders in the policy process will be more successful in building human and
social capital that improve good governance system, ensure sustainable development and alleviate
poverty.
5. Discussion – The Need for the Policy Clinic
5.1. Policy Execution
Policy execution it is complex and affected by many factors. Policy execution has been defined in
many ways- as an execution of policy, translation of policy in to action and so on, and this study used
a broader definition of execution. Van Meter and Van Horn 1974:447-8, cited in this study paper
(Brynard, 2005) defined policy execution as a process that encompasses those actions by public or private
individuals (or groups) that are directed at the achievement of objectives set forth in prior policy decisions. From this
definition, it is possible to understand that execution involves certain processes and actions, the
Costantinos
responsibility for execution rests not only on public agencies, private or non-governmental actor are
involved in policy execution.
Various studies showed that, directly or indirectly, governments have great role in translating
policy in to action. Public policy is implemented mostly by executive branch through legislation.
(Jessica R. Adolino et al, 2007) To implement policies, government will formally assign various
government agencies, departments and bureau, allocate budgets and give authority to implement. The
agencies and departments that are made responsible for policy execution formulate laws, rules and
regulations to translate the policy in to action; they then translate these laws in to operational
procedures, hire personnel, draw up contracts, spend money, and perform tasks (Adolino et al., Ibid).
Execution involves decisions by bureaucrats that determine policy, and the critical aspect of policy
execution is the high degree of discretion afforded to the agencies and the bureaucrats to transform
laws into action (PSU, 2004).
It is evident that all levels of government are not equally involved in the task of implementing
policies. Anderson 1990 mentioned in one study stated that administrative agencies accomplish most
of the execution tasks or the day-to-day work of government therefore; they have the most immediate
and direct impact on the daily lives of citizens than do any other government entities. Due to the
discretions, they have in implementing policies or in transforming laws into action; they can play
significant roles in this process. Thus, administrative decision-making has a significant impact on the
determination of who receives benefits and who is restricted as a result of the execution of any policy.
In addition, it has a far-reaching impact on society because of the promulgation of agency regulations,
contracting, licensing, inspections, enforcement, adjudication, and the actual discretion for agencies
to interpret their own agency rules (Ibid).
The task of implementing public policies thus largely rests on the government agencies and the
bureaucracy. As mentioned above, these parties or the implementers have discretion in designing
policy tools/instruments (legislation, regulation, guidelines and so on) with which policy is
implemented. However, the choices of these tools, their applications and the strategies to implement
policies largely are shaped by the political system. As a result, governments may choose highly coercive
or least coercive policy tools or instruments to implement public policy; and may prefer “top down” or
“bottom up” approach for execution. In one study, it is stated that in a liberal democratic society,
governments generally start with the least coercive instruments such as voluntary compliance, advice
and move to the higher ones such as fines and imprisonments if compliance is not being achieved,
and bottom up approach is favoured (Hunter, 2004). Governments have begun to recognize the need
to use nongovernmental organisations to advance public policies under contract to perform certain
limited functions e.g. refuse collection, which implies non-governmental actors are also involved in
policy execution. Individuals have also responsibility of implementing public policies e.g. paying
income tax.
In many cases, gaps exist between policy statement and execution, what is stated in policies might
not be done. Execution gaps/problems have wider implications. It is obvious that public policies are
formulated to solve social problems, which means if policies are not implemented, social problems
remain unsolved, and this could be a source of dissatisfaction and conflict between citizens and
governments. Therefore, policy execution is vital. Execution researches showed that execution
problem is not limited to developing countries, in a study that cited Van Horn 1973:473, it is stated
that problems of execution are profound in Western and non-Western nations, they are generic to
complex organisations (Najam, 1995). This implies that execution gaps are common problem that
both the developed and developing nations face. However, the problem is severe in Ethiopia where
many factors exist that impede execution.
Execution researchers have tried to explain success or failure in a wide variety of policy issues
from different angles. Some say execution problems are caused by administrative problems including
resources (financial, human, information); others say they a result of the approaches to policy
formulation and execution-top down or bottom up, while others say execution problems cannot be
explained without considering interrelated variables also known as the 5C’s.

Costantinos
The Content of the policy itself-what it sets out to do, the goals, and how it problematizes the
issue- the casual theory or the method of execution or how it aims to solve the perceived
problem.
The Context, - the institutional context, the corridor often structured as standard operating
procedures through which policy must travel, and by whose boundaries it is limited, in the
process of execution;
The Commitment, of those entrusted with carrying out the execution at various levels to the
goals, casual theory, and methods of the policy;
The Capacity- the administrative capacity of implementers to carry out the changes desired of
them; and
The Clients & Coalitions, - the support of those whose interests are enhanced or threatened by
the policy, and the strategies they employ in strengthening or deflecting its execution (Rabinh,
and Wachhaus, 2007). These five variables will be discussed further.
Because of the wider implication it has on people’s livelihood, policy execution has received the
attention of policy scholars and researchers. In order to have a good insight about how issues related
to policy execution are pressing, complex and also due to its relevance to the study topic, related
works of execution scholars are presented in the following paragraphs.
Policy is a process by which societal goals are determined, it is formulated to solve social problems,
and it has to be implemented for the problems to be solved. Country’s growth and development are
manifestations of good policy choice and effective executions. Policy execution is vital, challenging,
and complex and affected by many variables. Execution problem is common for both developing and
developed countries; however, the problem is severe in developing countries. Execution researchers
with different perspectives have tried to identify factors contributing to the success or failure of
policies. The classical or generation one researchers viewed execution as administrative chores that
once policy is legislated, the mandated institution can implement it.
Generation two researchers tried to show the limitations of classical views based on different case
studies. They pointed out mainly two different approaches top down and bottom up as factors for
success or failure of policy execution. For top downers, the policy process can be distinguishable is
stages, those at the top will formulate it and those at lower level will implement it. For bottom uppers,
however, there is high linkage between policy formulation and execution, they argued that these are
inseparable processes, those who are going to implement policy should participate in the formulation
process. Generation three researchers have tried to show the complexity of execution, and tried to
narrow the gap between top down and bottom up approach and also focuses on hybrid models that
focuses on many explanatory variables that can affect execution. Approaches to execution are thus
moved towards convergence, where the focus is mainly on the 5Cs, the Content, Context, Commitment,
Capacity and Clients & Coalitions.
The policy environment of many developing countries is also described as that one that is
characterised by uncertainties, resource scarcity (financial, human, information) and absence of
democracy. Developing countries have poor records of policy execution, and the inability for most
of them to get rid of poverty is manifestation of this. Since most of them are aid dependent, they are
prone to donor driven policies, which do not fit to their context and create difficult of execution.
Policymaking processes are also dominated by governments and are non-transparent and non-
inclusive, there is minimum involvement of citizens and other stakeholders in the process of
formulating and implementing policies and this has made execution to suffer. However, developing
countries cannot continue with this tradition of policy making process and execution, many factors
are urging the governments to improve the welfare of societies, including globalisation, increased
awareness of citizens about their rights, the SDGs, and the Poverty Reduction efforts. The trend is
towards democratic and participatory policymaking process.
5.2. Policy Evaluation:
Policy evaluation is a process by which general judgments about quality, goal attainment, programme
effectiveness, impact and costs can be determined. Policy evaluation is conducted to determine if the policy
has achieved the desired outcome or impact. Through evaluation, it is possible to determine whether
policy’s effects are intended or unintended, and whether the results are positive or negative for the
Costantinos
target population or the society as a whole. It is conducted because elected officials, policy makers,
community leaders, bureaucrats, and the public want to know what policies work and what policies
do not. However, there are also arguments that policymaking should not be viewed in such a
liner/rational process with distinct phases that is easily controlled by experts to achieve predicted
outcome. Instead, it should be viewed as an iterative and inseparable process with no beginning or
ends, as an entirely political process, dynamic, complex, involving multiple actors and negotiations.
Sometimes actions of these actors occurred simultaneously, as constructs of human agents, which are
highly influenced by their actions. Hence, it emphasizes the need to understand the behaviour of the
various actors involved in the process.
5.3. Policy Clinic
Policy Framework for the Government-wide Monitoring and Evaluation System – The Policy Clinic
The overarching policy framework for monitoring and evaluation in Government sketches the
policy context for supporting frameworks. It is further supplemented by an outline of the legislative
mandates of the various stakeholders charged with its implementation. It also provides a section on
principles which will guide future implementation initiatives. This Policy Framework is applicable to
all entities in the national, provincial and local spheres of government (The Presidency, 2007).
Government’s major challenge is to become more effective. The Policy Clinic can assist the public
sector in evaluating its performance and identifying the factors which contribute to its service delivery
outcomes. The Policy Clinic is uniquely oriented towards providing its users with the ability to draw
causal connections between the choice of policy priorities, the resourcing of those policy objectives,
the programmes designed to implement them, the services actually delivered and their ultimate impact
on communities. The Policy Clinic helps to provide an evidence base for public resource allocation
decisions and helps identify how challenges should be addressed and successes replicated. Monitoring
and evaluation is, however, extremely complex, multidisciplinary and skill intensive. Government-
wide monitoring and evaluation even more so, since it requires detailed knowledge both across and
within sectors, and interactions between planning, budgeting and implementation.
The picture is complicated even further when the machinery of the Ethiopian state is
decentralised, with powers and functions being distributed across three spheres of government. It
is precisely this complicated intergovernmental structure with diffused powers and functions which
requires strong M&E systems to promote coordination and prevent fragmentation.
Monitoring involves collecting, analysing, and reporting data on inputs, activities, outputs,
outcomes and impacts as well as external factors, in a way that supports effective management.
Monitoring aims to provide managers, decision makers and other stakeholders with regular feedback
on progress in implementation and results and early indicators of problems that need to be corrected.
It usually reports on actual performance against what was planned or expected.
Evaluation is a time-bound and periodic exercise that seeks to provide credible and useful
information to answer specific questions to guide decision making by staff, managers and policy
makers. Evaluations may assess relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. Impact
evaluations examine whether underlying theories and assumptions were valid, what worked, what did
not and why. Evaluation can also be used to extract crosscutting lessons from operating unit
experiences and determining the need for modifications to strategic results frameworks. M&E
revolves around a number of key elements
Inputs: all the resources that contribute to the production of service delivery outputs. Inputs
are “what we use to do the work”. They include finances, personnel, equipment and buildings.
Activities: the processes or actions that use a range of inputs to produce the desired outputs
and ultimately outcomes. In essence, activities describe “what we do”.
Outputs: the final products, goods and services produced for delivery. Outputs may be
defined as “what we produce or deliver”.
Outcomes: the medium-term results for specific beneficiaries which are the consequence of
achieving specific outputs. Outcomes should relate clearly to an institution’s strategic goals
and objectives set out in its plans. Outcomes are “what we wish to achieve”. Outcomes are
often further categorized into immediate/direct outcomes and intermediate outcomes.

Costantinos
Impacts: the results of achieving specific outcomes, such as reducing poverty and creating
jobs. Impacts are “how we have actually influenced communities and target groups”.
M&E should contribute to improved governance
Transparency All findings are publicly available unless there are compelling reasons otherwise.
Accountability Use of resources is open to public scrutiny.
Participation Voice is provided to historically marginalized people.
Inclusion Traditionally excluded interests are represented throughout M&E processes.
M&E should be rights based
Bill of Rights A rights based culture is promoted and entrenched by its inclusion in
the value base for all M&E processes.
M&E should be development-oriented – nationally, institutionally and locally
Pro poor orientation Poverty’s causes, effects and dynamics are highlighted and the interests of poor
people are prioritized above those of more advantaged groups.
Service delivery Variables reflecting institutional performance and service delivery are analysed
performance and reviewed, links are identified and responsive strategies are formulated.
Learning Knowledge and an appetite for learning are nurtured in institutions and
individuals.
Human Resources The skills required for deliberative M&E are available, fostered and retained
while the knowledge needed for strategic HR utilization is available and used.
Impact Awareness The possible impacts of M&E interventions are reflected upon in plans and their
actual outcomes are tracked and analysed systematically and consistently.
M&E should be undertaken ethically and with integrity
Confidentiality Processes ensure the responsible use of personal and sensitive information
Promises of anonymity and non identifiability are honoured and relied upon
Respect Dignity and self-esteem is built amongst stakeholders and affected people
Representation of There is skilful and sensitive implementation of M&E processes
competence Those engaged in monitoring and evaluation fairly represent their competence and
the limitations of their reports
Fair reporting Reporting provides a fair and balanced account of the findings
M&E should be utilisation oriented
Meeting expectations M&E products meet knowledge and strategic needs
Supporting utilisation A record of recommendations is maintained and their implementation followed up
An accessible central repository of evaluation reports and indicators is maintained
M&E should be methodologically sound
Consistent indicators Common indicators and data collection methods are used where possible to improve
data quality and allow trend analysis
Data/evidence based Findings are clearly based on systematic evidence and analysis
Appropriateness Methodology matches the questions being asked
Triangulated Multiple sources are used to build more credible findings
M&E should be operationally effective
Systematic As integrated component of public management, M&E is routine & regularized
Planned The scale of M&E reflects its purpose, level of risk and available resources
Scope Conscientious management of functions sustain on-time delivery of excellence
Managed The benefits of M&E are clear, its scale is appropriate given resource availability
Cost effective Robust systems are built to be resilient and do not depend on individuals or chance
5.4. .Organisation behaviour literature
Most political science models, with a primary interest in democratic control of bureaucracy, study
the political influence on the bureaucracy from an agency theory perspective. On the other hand,
Organisation behaviour literature is focused largely on the study of individual-level phenomena in public
and private organisations and does not incorporate political context as part of explanatory models.
We propose a middle- range theory to ‘‘connect the dots,’’ beginning with disparate sources in the
polity influencing organisational goal ambiguity, which in turn is expected to increase managerial role
Costantinos
ambiguity. An empirical test, using data collected from a national survey of managers working in state
human service agencies, supports this theoretical model. We find that certain types of political
influence have an impact on organisational goal ambiguity, which in turn has a direct effect in
increasing role ambiguity and also an indirect effect in increasing role ambiguity through
organisational structure.
Despite well-argued briefs in favour of public organisations’ distinctive institutional context (e.g.,
Perry and Rainey 1988; Wamsley and Zald 1973), much of the scholarship on organisation behaviour
and theory subscribes to a generic perspective on management and organisations (Rainey 2003, 56–
58). This is not due to a preponderance of evidence in favour of the generic tradition. Rather, there
is a paucity of systematic efforts to study key theoretical questions from the vantage point of public
sector organisational behaviour. This article addresses one such question—does the political
environment of organisations have an effect on organisations and individuals working in them? More
specifically, this article examines the relationships among political environment, organisational goal
ambiguity, and role ambiguity. These relationships are not only at the core of public management
theory but also can inform public management practice.
Public management embraces the value of theory and theoretically driven research (Bozeman
1993; Frederickson 1999; Jones 2003; Rainey 1993a). Nonetheless, critiques of the public management
research highlight that it does not pay sufficient attention to evidence, connectedness, and relevance
to the public manager’s world (See Boyne 2002; Dubnick 1999; Kelman et al. 2003; Newland 1994,
2000; Pandey and Scott 2002; Wright, Manigault, and Black 2004). Some assessments of relevance
and connectedness focus on high-level issues such as the disciplinary bona fides and affinities of
public management (e.g., Dubnick 1999; Meier and Stewart 1987; Newland 1994, 2000). Others offer
more grounded critiques that suggest that public management scholarship can do more to reflect the
realities of the public manager’s work environment (e.g., Brewer 2005; Pandey and Welch 2005; Scott
and Pandey 2005).
5.5. Theory and hypotheses
Although political scientists who study bureaucracy have discussed a variety of ways in which
politics has an impact on public organisations (e.g., Dahl and Lindblom 1953; Heclo 1977; Meier
1987; Wilson 1989), they have focused more on the political aspects of the phenomenon and less on
its organisational manifestations. Furthermore, this research typically occurs at the agency level with
few attempts to examine the effects of the political environment at the individual level (Brehm and
Gates 1993, 1999, are notable exceptions). Public management scholars, with a keener interest in
organisational phenomena, have produced some of the more insightful work examining the effects
of political environment on organisational phenomena (Bozeman 1987; Perry and Rainey 1988;
Rainey, Backoff, and Levine 1976; Wamsley and Zald 1973).
Public management scholarship has also suggested that public organisations are fundamentally
different from private organisations because of the function they serve in society (Baldwin and Farley
1991; Fottler 1981; Rainey 1989; Whorton and Worthley 1981). Public organisations address complex
social functions, providing goods and services that cannot be easily packaged for exchange in
economic markets (Baldwin 1987; Rainey 1983) As a result, the economic indicators of efficiency and
effectiveness that help direct and clarify goals in the private sector, such as prices and profits, are
often unavailable in the public sector. Even when public organisations are driven by supply and
demand, these forces do not necessarily converge toward optimal efficiency in the public sector
because the purchaser of public sector goods and services is often different from the beneficiary (Kettl
1995; Wagenheim and Reurink 1991).
For public programmes funded by individuals who do not receive the direct benefits, there are
ineluctable attendant demands for equity, accountability, and responsiveness, in addition to economic
efficiency. When an organisation lacks traditional market information and must respond to the
conflicting interests of multiple external stakeholders, goal ambiguity may be an inevitable outcome
of (or mechanism to cope with) policy conflict and complexity.

Costantinos
References
Adolino, Jessica R. et al. Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Six Industrialised Countries, (Co Press,
Washington DC, 2007)
African Development Bank. African Development Fund: Policy on Population and Execution Strategies (2000,
https://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/10000010-EN-POLICY-ON-
POPULATION-AND-STRATEGIES-FOR-EXECUTION.PDF)
Audretsch, David B., Gilbert, Brett Anitra; McDougall, Patricia P. The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Policy, Small
Business Economics 22, (2004), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_B._Audretsch)
Audretsch, David B.; Grilo, Isabel; Thurik & A. Roy. Explaining entrepreneurship and the role of policy: a framework,
(in David Audretsch, Isabel Grilo and A. Roy Thurik (eds.), Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy,
Edward Elgar Publishing, 2007)
Baldwin, J. Norman, and Quinton A Farley. 1991. Comparing the public and private sectors in the United States: A
review of the empirical literature. In Handbook of comparative and development public administration, ed. A.
Farazmand, 27–39. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Baldwin, J. Norman. Public versus private: Not that different, not that consequential. Public Personnel Management
16:181–931987)
Bhuyan, Anita; Anne Jorgensen & S. Sharma. Taking the Pulse of Policy: The Policy Execution Assessment Tool (U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), 2010, accessed 16 Dec 2018 from
http://www.healthpolicyplus.com/archive/ns/pubs/hpi/1155_1_PIAT_Paper_Taking_the_Pulse_of_Policy_ac
c.pdf)
Boloto, Ben; Ephrem W.Chirwa & Maxton G. Toska. Assessment of Poverty reduction Strategies in Sub Saharan
Africa: The case of Malawi, (OSSREA Ethiopia, 2009, accessed 16 Dec 2018 from
http://www.africanbookscollective.com/books/assessment-of-poverty-reduction-strategies-in-sub-saharan-
africa)
Bonaglia, Federico & Kiichiro Fukasaku. Trading Competitively: A Study of trade capacity Building in Sub Saharan
Africa, (OECD Development Centre July 2002, http://www.oecd.org,)
Boyne, George. Public and private management: What is the difference? (Journal of Management Studies 39 (1): 97–
122. 2002)
Bozeman, Barry, and Sanjay K. Pandey. Public management decision making: Effects of decision content. (Public
Administration Review 64:542–54. 2004)
Bozeman, Barry. All organisations are public. (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1987)
Bozeman, Barry. Theory, ‘‘wisdom,’’ and the character of knowledge in public management: A critical view of the
theory-practice linkage. (Public management: The state of the art, ed. B. Bozeman, 27–39. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass. 1993)
Bozeman, Barry. Bureaucracy and red tape.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 2000.
Brehm, John, and Scott Gates. 1993. Donut shops and speed traps: Evaluating models of supervision of police
behaviour. American Journal of Political Science 27:555–81.
Brewer, Gene A. In the eye of the storm: Frontline supervisors and federal agency performance. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 15:505–27. 2005.
Brynard, Petrus A Policy Execution: Lessons for Service Delivery (27th AAPAM Annual Roundtable Conference,
Zambezi Sun Hotel, Livingstone, Zambia 5-9, Dec 2005)
Brynard, Petrus. The policy making process in the Okavango River Basin (Anthony Turton, Chap 14, 2003,
http://www.anthonyturton.com/assets/my_documents/my_files/59E_Chapter_14.pdf)
Carroll, BW. & Terrance Carroll. Civic network, legitimacy and the policy process (Wiley, 17 Dec 2002,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/0952-1895.00088, https://doi.org/10.1111/0952-1895.00088)
Cohen, Nissim Policy Entrepreneurs and the Design of Public Policy: Conceptual Framework and the case of the
National Health Insurance Law in Israel (Journal of Social Research & Policy, 3 (1): 5-26, 2012
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxqcnNwb25lfGd4OjVkMGQ2
ODZkZTNmZWY4MTM)
Court, Julius; Enrique Mendizabal; David Osborne and John Young. Policy Engagement: How Civil Society Can be
More Effective. Rapid research & policy in Development (ODI, 2006,
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/200.pdf)
Curtain, Richard. Good Public Policy Making: Agenda: a Journal of Policy Analysis and Reform, Volume 8, Number
1, 2000, pages 33-46, http://www.curtain-consulting.net.au)
Dahl, Robert A., and Charles E. Lindblom. 1953. Politics, economics, and welfare. New York: Harper and Brothers.
deLeon, Peter & Linda deLeon: What Ever Happened to Policy Execution? An Alternative Approach (University of
Colorado, Denver, 2002, accessed 16 Dec 2018 from https://oied.ncsu.edu/selc/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/What-Ever-Happened-to-Policy-Execution-An-Alternative-Approach.pdf)
Dubnick, Melvin J. 1999. Demons, spirits, and elephants: Reflections on the failure of public administration theory.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
Edevbaro, Daniel. A review of social policy execution in Nigeria with emphasis on education (The United Nations
University World Institute for Development Economic Research, Oct 1996. http://www.wider.unu.edu)
Etta Florence E. and Laurent Elder. At the Crossroads: ICT policy making in East Africa (East African Educational
Publishers, Nairobi, Kampala, Dar es Salaam, 2005)
Fottler, Myron D. 1981. Is management really generic? Academy of Management Review 6:1–12.
Frederickson, H. George. 1999. The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science and Politics
32:701–11.
Heclo, Hugh. 1977. Political executives and the Washington bureaucracy. Political Science Quarterly 92 (3): 395–424.
Horowitz Donald L. Is there a third world Policy Process? (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands 1989).
Hunter, David J. Decision-making processes for Effective Policy Execution (accessed 16 Dec 2018 from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu)
Costantinos
Jocelyne, Hon and Bourgon. Why Should Governments Engage Citizens in Service delivery and Policy Making
(Chapter 21: OECD, 2007, http://www.oecd.org)
Jones, Bryan D. Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13:395–412. 2003.
Kelman, Steven, Fred Thompson, L. R. Jones, and Kuno Schedler. 2003. Dialogue on definition and evolution of the
field of public management. International Public Management Review 4 (2): 1–19.
Kelman, Steven. 1987. Making public policy: A hopeful view of American government. New York: Basic Books.
Kettl, Donald. 1995. Building lasting reform: Enduring questions, missing answers. In Inside the reinvention
machine, ed. D. F. Kettl and J. J. DiIulio, 9–83. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Lane, Jan-Erik & Svante Ersson, Policy Execution in Poor Countries (GM. Mudacumura & MS Haque, Handbook of
Development Policy Studies, (CRC Press, 2004, accessed 16 Dec 2018
https://books.google.com.et/books?id=0D6yRTLc2XcC&pg=PR8&lpg=PR8&dq=40.+Lane,+Jan-
Erik+%26+Svante+Ersson,+Policy+Execution+in+Poor+Countries&source=bl&ots=88MxThRs8K&sig=drTYV
RAneaqTyEA1tloY1I-EWo8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjQybLklaTfAhVvoYsKHWq-
A6UQ6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=40.%20Lane%2C%20Jan-
Erik%20%26%20Svante%20Ersson%2C%20Policy%20Execution%20in%20Poor%20Countries&f=false)
Menno Fenger and Pieter Jan Klok. Interdependency, belief and coalition behaviour, a contribution to the Advocacy
Coalition Behaviour, (Erasmus University, Rotterdam and University of Twent, Enschede, the Netherlands,
2001)
Montgomery, John D. & Alex Inkeles. Social Capital as a Policy Resource (Pacific Basin Research Center, Soka
University of America, 2001, http://www.pbrc.soka.edu/publications/Books/social-capital.aspx)
Mulat, Teshome. The economics of the Invisible Global Good Governance Government and the Aid Dependent
Economy, (Addis Abeba, 2009)
Najam. Adil. Learning from the Literature on Policy Execution: A Synthesis Perspective (Working Pape-95-61 IIASA,
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria July 1995)
Newland, Chester A. 1994. A field of strangers in search of a discipline: Separatism of public management research
from public administration. Public Administration Review 54 (5): 486–88.
Pandey & Wright. Connecting the dots in public management (DH Hill Library, Acquis Dept 2 Apr 2013)
Pandey, Sanjay K., and Gordon A. Kingsley. 2000. Examining red tape in public and private organisations: Alternative
explanations from a social psychological model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10:779–
99.
PSU. Public Policy-Making: Execution, Evaluation, Change and Termination - Definition of Public Policy Execution
(The Pennsylvania State University 2004, accessed 16 Dec 2018 from
(https://courses.worldcampus.psu.edu/welcome/plsc490/lesson05_02.html)
Puppim De Oliveira Jose Antonio Execution of environmental policies in developing countries. a case of protected
areas and tourism in Brazil, (NY State University of New York Press 2008, accessed 16 Dec 2018
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environmental-conservation/article/execution-of-environmental-
policies-in-developing-countries-a-case-of-protected-areas-and-tourism-in-brazil-by-jose-antonio-puppim-de-
oliveira-xvi-133-pp-235-155-1-cm-isbn-978-0-7914-7325-2-hardback-gb-2699us-5000-albany-ny-usa-state-
university-of-new-york-press-2008/29DAF518EE5A9BB29ED4F97814D3E087)
Rabinh, Jack and T. Aaron Wachhaus, Jr. Hand Book of Policy Analysis: Politics, Theory and Methods: CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group, 2007)
Rainey, Hal G., and Paula Steinbauer. Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government
organisations. (Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 9:1–32. 1999.
Scott, Patrick G. & SK. Pandey. Red tape and public service motivation: Findings from a national survey of managers
in state health and human services agencies. (Review of Public Personnel Administration. 25 (2): 155–80. 2005)
Smith Thomas B. The Study of Policymaking in Developing Nations (Wiley Online Library, June 1973,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1973.tb00108.x)
The Presidency. Policy Framework for the Government-wide M&E System (Republic of South Africa, 2007,
https://www.dpme.gov.za/publications/Policy%20Framework/Policy%20Framework%20for%20the%20GWM
E%20system.pdf)
UN. Citizen Participation and Pro-Poor Budgeting. (Department of Economics and Social affairs: Division for Public
administration and Development Management, UN, New York, 2005)
Vesely, Arnost. Problem Delimitation in Public Policy Analysis, Faculty of Social Sciences, (Charles University in
Prague, Central European Journal of Public Policy 1(1) Oct 2007, accessed 16 Dec 2018 from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26594393_Problem_delimitation_in_public_policy_analysis)
Wagenheim, George D., and John H. Reurink. Customer service in public administration (Public Administration
Review 51 (3): 263–70. 1991)
Wamsley, Gary A. & Mayer N. Zald. The Political Economy of Public Organisations (Washington, DC: Heath, 1973)
Warwick, Donald P. 1975. A theory of public bureaucracy: Politics, personality, and organisation in the State
Department. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waterman, Richard W., Amelia A. Rouse, and Robert L. Wright. The venues of influence: A new theory of political
control of the bureaucracy. (Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8:13–38. 1998)
Whorton, Joseph W., and John A. Worthley.. A perspective on the challenge of public management: Environmental
paradox and organisational culture. Academy of Management Review 6 (3): 357–61. 1981
Wolde, Mulugeta Abebe. A Critical assessments of Institutions, Roles, and Leverage in Public Policy Making: Ethiopia
(1974-2004). University of Stellenbosch, South Africa 2005)
Wright, Bradley E., and Soonhee Kim. 2004. Participation’s influence on job satisfaction: Importance of job
characteristics. Review of Public Personnel Administration 24 (1): 18–40.
Wright, Bradley E., Lepora J. Manigault, and Tamika R. Black. Quantitative research measurement in public
administration: An assessment of journal publications. Administration and Society 35 (1): 747–642004.

Priming Public Policy Analysis Synthesis

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Priming Public Policy Analysis Synthesis

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Priming Public Policy Analysis,

Synthesis, Design, Execution & Policy

2 | Policy Making & Execution and Civic Engagement

6 | Policy Making & Execution and Civic Engagement

10 | Policy Making & Execution and Civic Engagement

12 | Policy Making & Execution and Civic Engagement

17 | Policy Making & Execution and Civic Engagement

19 | Policy Making & Execution and Civic Engagement

21 | Policy Making & Execution and Civic Engagement

23 | Policy Making & Execution and Civic Engagement

Potrebbero piacerti anche