PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

Prof.Dr.M.Irfan Islamy,MPA
Faculty of Administrative Science
BRAWIJAYA UNIVERSITY
2008

What is public policy ?

1. J.E.Anderson , 1975 :
Public policy is a purposive course of action followed by
govern-ment in dealing with some topic or mater of public
concern
2. D.Easton , 1953 :
Public policy is the authoritative allocation of values for
the whole society
3. T.R.Dye , 1978 :
Public policy is whatever govrnments choose to do or not
to do
4. C.L.Chochran & E.F.Malone , 1995 :
Public policy consists of political decisions for implementing
pro-grams to achieve societal goals
2

5. William Jenkins ( 1978 )

Public policy -- as a set of interrelated decisions
taken by a political
actor or group of actors concerning
the selection of
goals and the means of achieving
them within a
specified situation where those
decisions should , in
principle, be within the power of
those actors to achieve

Public Policy Typology

1. C.L.Chochran & E..Malone , 1995 :
1.1 Patronage / Promotional Policies : as those gvernment
actions that provide incentive for idividuals or corporations to
undertake activities they would only reluctantly undertake
without the promise of a reward. These can be classified into
three types : subsidies ; contracts; and licences.
1.2
Regulatory Policies : as those which allow the government
to exert control over the conduct of certain activites ( negative
forms of control). They include : invironmental pollution; civil &
criminal penalties; consumption of tobacco, alcohol; consumer
protection ; employee health and safety.
1.3 Redistributive Policies : as those which control people by
managing the economy as a whole. The techniques of control
involve fiscal (tax) and monetary ( supply of money ) policies.
They tend to beneft one group at the expense of oher groups
through the reallocation of wealth.

To be continued .............

2. J.P.Lester & J.Stewart,Jr , 2000. ( Following T.J.Lowi & Others )

2.1. Liberal or Conservative Policies : Liberal policies are those
in which the government is used extensively to bring about social
change, usually in the direction ofensuring greater level of social
equality.
Conservative policies generally oppose the use of
government to bring about social change but may approve
government action to preserve the status quo or to promote
favored interests. Such as : Liberals tend to favor a concentration
of power in higher levels of government ; whereas Conser-vatives
tend to favor decentralization of power and authority.
2.2 Substantive or Procedural Policies : Substantive policies are
concerned with governmental actions to deal with substantive
problems, such as highway construction; environmental
protection; payment of welfare benefits. Procedural policies are
those that relate to how something is going to be done or who is
going to take action, such as the Administrative Procedures Act of
194 G.

To be continued ................

2.3 Material or Symbolic Policies : Material policies provide

concrete re-sources
or substantive power to their
beneficiaries , or , impose real disadvantages on those
adversely affected. For example , welfare pay-ments;
housing subsidies; etc.
Symbolic policies appeal more
to cherished values than to tangibles benefits; such as
national holidays that honor patriots, concerning the flag
etc.
2.4 Collective or Private Goods Policies : Collective goods
policies are those benefits that cannot be given to some but
denied to others, such as national defense and public
safety. Private goods policies are those goods that may be
divided into units, and for which consumers can be charged
, such as food, trash collection, home security etc.

Why government intervene ?

# When society desires health care and a clean environment for

everyone, why does the free market not provide it ?
# Do you believe that the free market has proven a superb device
for eficient-ly producing goods and services ?
# What do you say when efforts to relieve market imperfections
by public policy will also be flawed ?
# Do you agree when others argue that government may be the
only actor that can improve market efficiency or alter economic
and social costs, risks, and income distribution in a positive way ?
D.L.Weimer & A.R.Vining , 1999 : .... Greater equity in the
distributions of economic and political resources, should be
viewed as only necessary conditions for appropriate government
intervention

Market and Government Failures

( D.K.Gupta , Analyzng Public Policy , 2001 )

Market Failure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Lack ofcompetition
Barriers to entry and exit
Restricted flow of information
Externalities and social cost
Rising service costs

Government Failure
1. Inability to define social
welfare
2. Limits to democracy and the
paradox of voting
3. Inability to define the marginal
benefts and costs of public
goods
4. Political constraints
5. Cultural constraints
6. Institutional constraints
7. Legal constraints
8. Knowledge constraints
9. Analytical constraints
10.Timing of policies

What public policy analysis is ?

1. Chochran & Malone , 1995:
Policy analysis describes investigations that produce
accurate and useful information for decision makers
2. Dunn , 1981 :
Policy analysis is an applied social science discipline which
uses multiple methods of inquiry and argument to produce
and transform policy -relevant information that may be
utilzed in political setting to resolve policy problems
3. Jenkins-Smith, 1990 :
Policy analysis is a set of techniques and criteria with which to
evaluate public policy options and select among them .... to
rationalize the development and implementation of public
policy .... and as the means to greater efficiency and equity in
allocation of public resources
10

11

CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

( H.Lasswell , 1971 )

1.
2.
3.
4.

MULTI-METHODS
MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
PROBLEM-FOCUSED
CORCERNED TO MAP THE CONTEXTUALITY OF THE POLICY
PROCESS,
POLICY OPTION AND POLICY OUTCOMES
5. WHOSE GOALS IS TO INTEGRATE KNOWLEDGE INTO AN
OVERARCHING
DISCIPLINE TO ANALYSE PUBLIC CHOICES AND DECISION
MAKING AND
THEREBY CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF
SOCIETY
12

POLICY ANALYSIS
( W.PARSONS , 1997 )
1. META ANALYSIS : is concerned with understanding the idea that the
analysis of public policy proceeds by employing metaphors . By
describing something in terms of something else.. As devices to explore
the unknown. ( models : stagist ; pluralist-elitist; neo marxist;
policy discourse )
2. MESO ANALYSIS : is a middle-range or bridging level of analysis which is
focused on the linkage between the definition of problems, the setting of
agendas and decision-making and implementation processes
3. DECISION ANALYSIS : analysis of decision-making process and analysis in
and for decision-making : who gets what and how ? ( Elitism , Pluralism,
Marxism, Corporatism, Professio-nalism, and Technocracy )
4.

DELIVERY ANALYSIS : is the analysis of implementation, evaluation,

change and impact

13

Two Main Concerns : Positive & Normative

Analysis
( C.L.Cochran & E.F.Malone , 1995 )

Positive Analysis

Normative Analysis

1. A concern with understanding how 1. Is directed toward studying what

the policy process works
public policy
ought
to be to
2. Strives to understand publc policy
improve the general welfare
as it is
2. Deals with statement involving
3. Endeavors to explain how various
value judgments about what
social and political forces would
should be. For example : The
change policy
cost of health care in Indonesia is
4. Tries to pursue truth through the
too high. This statement cannot
process of tesing hypotheses by
be confirmed by referring to data.
measuring them against the
Whether the cost is too high or is
standard of
real-world expeappropriate is based on a given
riences
criterion. Its validity depends upon
5. Usually deals with assertions of
ones values and ethical views.
cause and effect :
Individuals may agree on the facts
If the Indonesian government
of healthcare costs but disagree
raises interest rates , then
over their ethical judgments
consumers will borrow less . This
regarding the implications of the
statement may be tested
by
cost of health care.
setting-up an experiment within a
state. The results may confirm or
14
refute the statement .

Approaches to Policy Analysis

( J.P.Lester & J.Stewart ,Jr., 2000 )
Type of Approach
1. Process approach
2. Substantive approach
3. Logical-positivist approach
4. Econometric approach
5. Phenomenological
( Postpositivist ) approach
6. Participatory approach
7. Normative approach
8. Ideological approach
9. Historical approach

Primary Objective
1. To examine a part of the policy
process
2. To examine a substantive area
3. To examine the causes and
consequen-ces of policy using
scientifc methods
4. To test economic theories
5. To analyze events through an
intuitive process
6. To examine the role of multiple
actors in policymaking
7. To prescribe policy to decisons
makers or others
8. To analyze from a liberal or
conservative point of view
9. To examine policy over time
15

Approaches to Policy Analysis

( M.J.Dubnick & B.A.Bardes , 1983 )
Type of
Policy
Analyst

Public
Policy
Problem

Motivation

Approach

Relevant
Training

Scientist

Theoretic

Search for
theory,
regularities,
truth

Scientific
methods,
objectivity, pure
analytic

Basic research
metods, canons
of social
science
research

Professional

Design

Improvement of
policy and
policy-making

Utilization of
know-ledge ,
strategic

Strategic, costbenefit analysis,

queuing,
simula-tion,
decision analysis

Political

Value
maximization

Advocacy of
policy positions

Rhetoric

Gathering
useful evidence,
effective
presentation

Administrati
ve

Application

Effective &
Efficient policy
implementation

Strategic,
Managerial

Strategic, same
as for
Professional

Personal

Contention

Concern for

Mixed

Use of many

16

Models of Public Policy Analysis

1. K.E.Portney , 1987 :
1.1 The Policy Making Process : public policy not as a product of government
but as a political process . (1) Problem formation ;(2) Policy formulation ; (3)
Policy adoption ; (4) Policy implementation ; and (5) Policy evaluation .
1.2 The Causes and Consequences of Public Policies : the focus is on either
intended or unintended impacts of governmental decisions or non-decisions
( the results of government action or inaction ). (1) Public policy inputs ----(2) Policy conversion process ----- (3) Public Policy outputs ----- (4) Public
policy outcomes ------ (5) Public policy feedback ----- ( back to no.1 )
1.3 Public Policy Prescription : attempts to use a variety of economic, mathematical, computer science and operations research techniques to systematically help us answer the question : What policy should we pursue in the future ? And often attempts to find ways of making policy a more rational
process, and mostly never deals with the issue directly but to prescribe ways
of improving the policymaking process.

17

4. D.J.Palumbo , 1987 :
(1) Agenda seting : defining nature, size, and distribution of problem
(2) Problem definition : forecasting needs, defining targets
(3) Policy design : decison analysis
(4) Policy legitimation : opinion polls, surveys etc.
(5) Implementation ( formative evaluation )
( ) Impact ( summative evaluation)
(7) Termination ( political feasibility analysis )
5. J.P.Lester & J.Stewart , 2000 :
(1) Agenda setting
(2) Policy formulation
(3) Policy implementation
(4) Policy evaluation
(5) Policy change and termination

18

2. B.W.Hogwood & L.A.Gun , 1984 :

(1) Deciding to decide ( issu search or agenda setting )
(2) Deciding how to decide ( or issue filtration )
(3) Issue definition
(4) Forecasting
(5) Setting objectives and priorities
( ) Options analysis
(7) Policy implementation, monitoring and control
(8) Evaluation and review
(9) Policy maintenance, succession, or termination
3. J.E.Anderson , 1975 :
(1) Problems and Agendas
(2) Policy Formulation
(3) Policy Adoption
(4) Policy Implementation
(5) Policy Evaluation

19

PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

SCOPE OF ANALYSIS

POLICY
FORMULATION

POLICY
IMPLEMENTATIO
N

POLICY
EVALUATION
( IMPACT )

20

THE POLICY CYCLE AND THE INFORMATION CYCLE

Problem Definition
Forecasting needs,
defining targets

Agenda
Setting

Termination

Policy Design
Defining nature
size, distributions
of problem

Decision
analysis

Political
feasibility analysis

Summative
evaluation

Impact
Source : W.Persons, 1997, public policy

Opinion polls,
surveys,
etc.
Policy
Formative
evaluation

Legitimation

Implementation

Agendas, Alternatives, &

Public
Policy
(J.
Kingdon)
The agendais the list of subjects or
problems to which government officials,
and people outside of government
closely associated with those officials,
are paying some attention at any given
time.

PROBLEM
STREAM

Indicators, events,
definitions, values,
collective action.
Policy
entrepreneurs
aware of the problem.

POLICY STREAM
Alternatives, solutions,
policy communities,
feasibilities. Hidden
cluster of participants
dominate.

Streams
are
coupled

POLITICAL STREAM
National mood, public
opinion, electoral
politics, consensus
building, Visible cluster
of participants
dominate.

Kingdons Agenda Setting

Model

Window of Opportunity
(predictable, unpredictable)
CPM/HSS2/2008

23

Important Characteristics of Policy Problems

( W.N.Dunn , 1981 )
1. Interdependent : Policy problem in one area frequently affect policy
problems in other areas. In reality policy problems are not independent
entities; they are parts of whole systems of problems.
2. Subjective : The external conditions that give rise to a problem are
selectively defined, classified, explained and evaluated. Although there is
a sense in which problems are objective , but they are typically
intrepreted in markedly different ways. Policy problems are mental
artifacts that come about by transforming experience through human
judgment.
3. Artificial : Policy problems are possible when human beings make
judgments about desirability of altering some problematic situation. Policy
problems are products of subjective human judgment and also come
to be accepted as legitimate definitions of objective social conditions
and are therefore socially constructed, maintained, ans changed.
4. Dynamic : There are many different solutions for a given problem as
there are definitions of that problem. Problem and solutions are in
constant flux, hence problems do not stay solved.

24

25

26

AGENDA SETTING PROCESS

( T.A.Birkland , 2006 )
AGENDA SETTING :
- is the process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose
public and elite attention ;
- group competition to set the agenda is fierce because no society or political instituions have the capacity to address all possible alternatives to
all possible problems that arise at any one time ;
- group must therefore fight to earn their issues places among all the
other issues sharing the limited space or to prepare for the time when a
crisis makes their issue more likely to occupy a more prominent on the
agenda.
* An agenda is a collection of problems, understandings of causes, symbols,
solutions, and other elements of public problems that come to the
attention of members of the public and their governmental officials.

27

ISSUE ATTENTION CYCLES (IACs)

(Anthony Downs : 1972)
2 Alarmed discovery
Euphhoric enthusiasm

1 Pre - problem

3 Realizing cost of
significant progress

5 Post - problem

4 Gradual decline of
public interest

LEVELS OF THE AGENDA

( T.A.Birkland , 2006 )

29

The expansion and control of agendas

Issues
characteristics

Initiator
Issue
creation
Trigger
device

Symbol
Utilization

Mass
media
emphasis

Systemic agenda
All issues commonly
perceived by members of
a political community as meriting
public attention of public
authorities.
To get access to systemic agenda
an issue must have :
widespread attention/awarness
shared concern of a sizeable portion
of public
shared perception that it is a matter
of concern to a public authority
Source : Adapted from Cobb and Elder (1972)

Expansion
to larger
publics

Agenda
of decision
makers

Patterns
af access

Institutional
agenda

Explicitly up for active and

serious consideration by
decision makers.
May be an old item which is
up for regular review or is
of periodic concern. Or it may
be a new item.

* Or governmental/ formal

THE POLICY ARENA

Administrative Process
1. Competence and
capacity
2. Decision - Action
(Values)

Political Process
1. Pressure
2. Supports
(Values)

Judicial Process
1. Restraint
2. Performance

Policy Making Arena

Negotiating
(Actors) Bargaining (Groups)
Struggling

(Values)
1. Review Investigation
2. Enactments

Legislative Process

(Values)

32

POLICY IMPLEMENTATION THEORY

( T.A.Birkland, 2006 )

33

DELIVERY MIX
(W. Parsons. 1995. P. 492)
MARKET

MIX
HIERARCHYBUREAUCRACY

GOVERNMENTAL MIX
SECTORAL MIX
ENFORCEMENT MIX
VALUE MIX

COMMUNITYNETWORK

An Analytical Approach for Analyzing Implementation

Processes
( T.Bredgaard,L.Dalsgaard & F.Larsen , 2003 )

35

36

POLICY INSTRUMENTS

NO

R. Lineberry

G. Edwards III

C. Hood

1.

Organizational Units

Bureaucratic Structure

Organization

2. Standard Operating Procedures

Disposition

Authority

3. Coordination & Communication

Communication

Nodality

Resources

Treasure

4.

Allocation of Resources

Direct and Indirect Impacts on Implementation

Communications
Resources
Implementation
Dispositions
Bureaucratic
Structure
Source : G.C. Edwards III, 1980, Implementating Public Policy, pp. 148

Communications
Transmission
Clarity
Consistency
Resources
Staff
Information
Authority
Facilities

Bureaucratic Structure
Standard Operating Procedures
Fragmentation
Dispositions
Effect of Dispositions
Staffing the Bureacracy
Incentives

Family and Community

Voluntary Organizations
Private Markets

Voluntary
Instruments

Level of State Involvement

Mixed
Instruments

Regulation
Public Enterprises
Direct Provision

Information and Exhortation

Subsidies
Auction of Property Rights
Tax and User Charges

A Spectrum of Policy Instruments

Low
High

Compulsory
Instruments

40

Metaphor of implementation failure

Machine
metaphor
Result of poor chain of
command - problems
with structure and roles
Domination
Metaphor
Result of labour/
management conflict
Psychic
metaphor
Result of subconscious
forces - groupthink/
ego defences/repressed
sexual instincts

Organism
metaphor
Result of human
relations or the
environment
implementation
failure
Autopoietic
metaphor
Result of a
self-referencing
system

Brain
metaphor
Result of poor
Information flows-or
learning/ problems
Culture
metaphor
Result of the culture
of the organization
Power
metaphor
Result of power in and
around the implementation
process

42

43

CATEGORY OF POLICY EVALUATION

( Howlett & Ramesh , 1995 )

ADMINISTRAT
IVE

JUDICIAL

POLITICAL

Evaluating
Managerial
Performance and
Budgeting Systems

Judicial Review
and
Administrative
Discretion

Consultations with
Policy Subsystems
and
The Public

45

46

Types of Evaluations Activities and

Corresponding Evaluating Issues
( Rossi, Freeman & Wright 1979 )

48

49

WHO ARE STAKEHOLDERS ?

A stakeholder is any person, group or

institution that has an interest in a
development activity, project or
programme. This definition includes
both intended beneficiaries and
intermedi-ries, winners or losers, and
those involved or excluded from
decision-making process
50

Stakeholders can be devided into :

Stakeholder
Primary Stakeholders

Secondary Stakeholders

Definition
Those who are ultimately affected, ie who
expect to benefit from or be adversely
affected by the inter-vention. Those with
high power and interests.
Those with intermediary role. Those with
high interest but low power , or high
power but low interest.

KEY STAKEHOLDERS : are those who can significantly

influence the project ; both primary and secondary
stakeholders may be key stakeholders
51

What is stakeholder analysis ?

# A stakeholder analysis is a technique you

can use to identify and assess the importance
of key people, groups of people, or institutions
that may significantly influence the success of
your activity , project or programme
#
A methodology used to facilitate
institutional and policy reform processes by
accounting for and often incorporating the
needs of those who have a stake or an
interest in the reforms under consideration

52

Why use stakeholder analysis ?

Stakeholder analysis aims to :
1. Identify and define the characteristics of key stakeholders ;
Identify people, groups, and institutions that will influence your
initiative ( either positively or negatively )
2. Assess the manner in which they might affect or be affected by
the programme /
project outcome ;
Anticipate the kind of influence, positive or negative, yhese
group will have on your initiative
3. Understand the relations between stakeholders, including an
assessment of the
real or potentials conflicts of interest and expectation between
stakeholders ;
4. Assess the capacity of different stakeholders to participate
Develop strategies to get the most effective support possible for
your initiative and reduce any obstacles to successful
53
implementation of your program

Stakeholder Analysis Matrix

STAKEHOLDER STAKEHOLDER
INTERESTS IN
THE PROJECT

ASSESSMENT
OF
IMPACT

POTENTIAL
STRA-TEGIES
FOR OBTAINING
SUPPORT OR
REDUCING
OBSTA-CLES

Benefits

- Very
important

- Engage
closely

Change

- Fair

- Keep
informed /
- Keep satisfied

Damage /
Conflits

- Not very
important

- Monitor
( minimum effort )
54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

TERIMAKASIH

70