CHAPTER THREE

3. POLICY CYCLES AND STAGES

Introduction
In chapter three, the major policy cycles and the different stages that should occur in each cycle
will be briefly overviewed, while each cycle will constitute separate chapter for deeper
examinations and discussions of the policy processes. Students will have an advantage to refer to
a theoretical model presented in this chapter that features several “stages” of the policy process
from the first conceptions of a policy to its implementation and feedback, which will be discussed
in detail in the subsequent chapters. The model presented in figure-3.1 is too simple to resemble
any major policy decision sequences. The steps need not be necessarily taken consciously or in
this order, and several steps can happen simultaneously. Nor is the “movement” in only one
direction; action in each stage depends on those that follow as well as precede it. The model has,
however, the virtue of identifying, explicitly or implicitly, the key choices that must be made at
some point.

Therefore, the policy cycle can be described as an analytic devise that is developed to classify
distinct types of behavior found in the political process. It outlines the different activities involved
from problem identification, through policy formulation, implementation to review or evaluation.
It is called a cycle because issues that are identified and solved through the policy are continuously
reviewed and through the feedback loop, revisited in different or successive policies.

3.1. The Process of Public Policy Making

The policy process could be examined in general, several or specific terms. At the general level, it
relates the pattern of activities, interactions, procedures and methods of making policies at the level
of international organizations and state at the sectoral level, for example, you can talk of health
policy process or defense policy process. In specific terms, the process of a particular policy could
also be isolated and examined. However, the processes of policies may differ as a result of the
context, conditions, the persons involved and manner by which the policies are made. Furthermore,
the processes may even be unique by virtue of precedence, choice, tradition and peculiar
characteristics to states governments and even policy sectors.

In short, the public policy process is a dynamic and interactive process. It is also a continuous
process, not a one-time event. In most cases, public policy lays down general directives and rules.
The actual details of the policy along with its implementation techniques are in the sub-policies.
So, the actual policy is more generic and dynamic.

The examination of the policy process as an interactive process can be done from the holistic
perspective provided by systems analysis. The process of policies in organizations government
could be described from this perspective as consisting of several activities and interactions between
the environment which generates demands, the political system or more accurately the conversion

1
process, which converts and translates demands and preferences into policy output and the
implementation system which consists of implementing agencies and activities. (Robinson and
Majark; 1967:179).

3.1.1. Stages In the Policy Making Process

[Link]. Agenda-Setting, Defining Problems and Objectives
Stage one: Agenda-Setting
Three events mark the beginning of the cycle: agenda-setting, problem definition, and statement
of public policy objectives. Agenda-setting, which is the starting point in the policymaking
process, is an activity of listing of issues that warrant serious consideration for the making or
remaking of policy. We can distinguish between two kinds of agendas; the popular agenda and the
institutional agenda.

The popular agenda: is the list of problems and issues in which the general public is most
interested. For example, opinion polls regularly report that unemployment or crime or danger of
nuclear war may head at the top of the list of concerns in a given month. Issues rise and fall on this
agenda because of many factors: media publicity, widespread public experiences, or the efforts of
a president/head of state to publicize them, for example. Nearly always, they reflect something
that government is already doing-well or badly. These issues can also vary regionally or locally; a
depressed economy in one state/region or a high crime rate in the other may dominate the public
agendas in those places.

As William Johnson (1992) remarked, many issues have gone through an issue-attention or issue-
domain cycle, from “alarmed discovery” of a problem and “euphoric enthusiasm” that it will be
solved, to “realizing the cost of significant progress” and “gradual decline of intense public
interest”. Only a limited number of issues can hold the public’s attention at any one time, and as a
new one rises, an old one must fall whether or not it has been “solved.” Both success and failure
of the action can be the cause of its removal from the agenda.

Figure 3.1: Stages of Public Policy

2
 8. 1.
MONITORING AGENDA
AND SETTING
EVALUATING

7. 2.
IMPLEMENTING PROBLEM
THE POLICY
DEFINITION

6. 3.
CHOOSING OBJECTIVE
ALTERNATIVES SEETING

5. 4.
ASSESSING DISCERING
ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES

Institutional agenda: in contrast, consists of those items that specific government bodies or leaders,
such as congress or a city mayor, rank as high priorities for action. These concerns reflect the
popular agendas but emphasize specific matters on which some agreement is possible. Thus, at a
time when the public is worried about unemployment, congress agenda may include proposals, for
example, to create new public service jobs or protect a country’s industries from foreign
competition. If an issue doesn’t contain realistic potential for new action, it will not be taken very
seriously. Agendas of national, state/regional, and local governments frequently interlock with
each other.
Ideologies, dominant personalities, and the waves of electoral politics are the key "filters" of
agenda possibilities, since all such development must be perceived and selected by politicians. For
example, President Reagan's election in 1980 significantly restructured not only the agenda of the
executive branch, but also that of Congress toward tax cuts, increased military spending, and
reduced government regulation of business.

Stage Two: Defining Problems

While they are setting the agenda, policymakers also must define the problem that confronts them.
Essentially, a "problem definition" is determining the gap between the current and the preferred or

3
ideal situation. "Every disparity between the actual and the desired situation is defined as a problem
and is widely assumed to have a solution and one may demonstrably be better than any other
alternative. According to Wildavsky (1979:3), "The solution is part of defining the problem.
Creativity consists of finding a problem about which something can and ought to be done”.
Although any problem has objective dimensions, it still requires human judgment about its ethical
values and options for action.

In politics, no problem is "given" in the sense that everyone will regard it in exactly the same
terms. It may be measurable with statistics, or with personal definition that appeals to emotions as
well. As Stone (1988:106) has said, "There is no objective description of a situation; there can only
be portrayals of people's experience and interpretations". An individual policymaker may define a
problem and try to convince others that his/her conception of the issue and proposed action is the
best to provide solution. This analysis would reveal how policymakers’ values and perceptions
blend with the situations to generate governmental choices. Whichever definition is accepted
inevitably shapes the policies devised to meet it.

Stage Three: Setting Objectives

Objective Setting is essentially choosing specific goals to be achieved by the policy to be
formulated. A typical problem statement often points to some potential objectives for solution;
each of which might be attractive to some person or group, and each might be attainable in some
degree but not fully compatible with one another. Such statements are most effective when
expressed in concrete terms: to reduce the incidence of death due to kidney disease by 50 percent
in two years, for example. Yet, when there is a legislative struggle over which objectives shall
dominate, the final statement that goes into the policy is usually vague enough to encompass all of
the favored ones.

Objective can have many sources. The objectives selected directly guide the choice of alternative
policies. All choices flow in continuous stream of decisions from the indefinite past to the uncertain
future. They involve selecting one course of action from several options with the expectation that
the selections will serve the policymakers’ purposes. A problem arrives on the public agenda only
if it has not been solved by individuals or private organizations, and controversy often rages over
what the options, purposes, and expectations really exist.
[Link]. Discerning, Assessing, and Choosing the Alternatives
Stage Four: Discerning the Alternatives
Discerning the alternatives is identifying potential courses of action that could achieve the
designated objective/s. In searching for alternative courses of action, policymakers usually begin
with the "short list" of ideas with which they are familiar. Generally, each of these ideas is
suggested or mandated by the definition that policymakers have already given the problem or by
the ideological stance they hold toward the general issue. Conservatives and liberals are often

4
distinguished by the contrasting solutions that they habitually consider for unemployment or
business regulation respectively, for example.

As Herbert Simon (1957) aptly noted, often, if time is short or political pressures dictate, policy-
makers will "satisfice" with the information they have. Simon's word (satisfice), which is a
composite of satisfy and suffice, indicates their ending the search before they analyze every
possible alternative and deciding on the basis of what they know. But where the known solutions
do not suffice for the politically significant persons, the search will continue. For example, the
futile efforts to control the illegal drug trade currently are stimulating this kind of effort.

The search for alternatives has political boundaries like those of the previous stages. Since
politicians are likely to have already defined the problem and set the objectives, they have also
given thought to which alternatives are preferred, which can be mentioned, and which must be
excluded. "Controlling the number and kinds of alternative considered is the essence of the
political game" The debate among policymakers over transplants would have fallen into chaos if
other legislators had demanded consideration of equal treatment for sufferers from AIDS, for
example. Of course, the state must deal with that difficulty on its priority list, but without appearing
to draw resources away from prenatal care and other high-priority services.

Government administrators frequently suggest policy alternatives in the fields of their experiences.
This is particularly common for the top executives of federal and state/regional agencies who share
a policy agenda with their president or governor. "Through feedback from the operation of
programs...implementation can lead to innovation. If bureaucrats find a program is not going well
in some particular instances, the recognition of that trend might be used (or feed into) as an input
for a policy change" (Kingdom, 1984:34). Wherever a remaking of current policy is on the agenda,
the influence of appreciating the problem itself is likely to be strong.

"New" ideas can come from governments other than the one deciding. Often a state or city adopts
an idea that others have found successful. Innovations in low-income housing, corrections reform,
and environmental regulations have spread among policymakers open to new solutions. European
countries, and recently Japan, have also been the source of policy ideas in health care, education,
waste management, and housing, although policy transfer across national and cultural boundaries
is not always feasible.

Similar to the international transfer of ideas is the exchange from one policy realm to another. For
transfers of both types to succeed, those familiar with the issues must be creative enough to
perceive how the idea must be adapted to the new situation. Scientific and technological research
and development often produce new policy alternatives. Scientists and engineers enjoy much
prestige in a culture committed to the innovation they promote; to label a proposal "scientific” is
to endow it with unmatched credibility.

5
In many policy areas, the demands of new members of the policy community have enriched the
stock of alternatives. For example in USA, since the early 1960s, Blacks, Women, Hispanics, and
other groups that had not been included in policymaking have succeeded both in making their
demands heard and in joining the ranks of those who admit and consider alternatives. Programs in
employment, education, and many other realms, have been broadened as a result. The "comparable
worth" claim that jobs requiring equal skill and responsibility should be paid the same salary,
whether they are held by men or women, whites or persons of color, is recognized as a result of
the efforts of these groups.

These sources of policy alternatives contribute as well to the definitions of problems and
objectives. The influence of a proposed solution depends on its fit with the prevailing concept of
the problem. The source of an alternative obviously influences its chance of getting a serious
hearing. Those who advocate legalizing the voluntary adult use of marijuana and cocaine are
ordinarily dismissed (whether fairly or not) as users who want to avoid legal penalties for their
pursuits are against the interest of the majority. On the other hand, proposals for combating drug
abuse that come from a respected public agency invariably receive serious consideration.
Stage Five: Assessing the Alternatives
Basically, an assessment of alternatives is forecasting the likely outcomes of each alternative,
including benefits and costs; if policy “A” is chosen, its likely outcome “B” will (or will not) close
the gap between the present situation and the goal that was set. Also implicit is the expectation that
unwanted situation “C” will not result from policy “A”. The data supporting that forecast may be
extensive or sketchy, and so it may be presented with either confidence or hesitation. This
assessment is done for each alternative on the table, and at the end, one ideally chooses that which
offer the greatest possible margin of expected benefits (given the objectives already decided) over
the costs or harms it would entail.

In the real world of politics, all of these judgments are complex and subjective. Even when there
are "hard" data, they can be interpreted and valued differently by the participants. Judgmental
criteria enter these deliberations. Though public policymaking criteria will be discussed in more
detail later in Chapter Five, here also few criteria emphasized by Johnson (1992:163-64), that
would be applied for assessing different alternatives can be briefly overviewed
Benefits as Criteria for Assessment: Policymakers must ask questions related to assessing the
value of benefits. First, what benefits are anticipated from each alternative? For whom, when how
much are they valued or needed? And which are measurable in dollars or other numbers, and which
are not? How do these benefits compare with those provided to other groups in other policies?
Who would be denied benefits? Answers require calculation of the values of each set of benefits
for each group of recipients. How the recipients respond to those possibilities clearly shapes that
calculation.

6
Costs: The second criterion mirrors the benefits; costs incurred by each alternative. Again,
policymakers must ask, what costs, for whom, what would it cost the government, who might be
harmed as a result, what are the opportunity costs- that is, what other benefits could have been
gained with the funds if this were not chosen? Costs, like benefits, cannot be fully measured in
dollars; because pain, fear, and lost opportunities lack an agreed-upon calculus.

Feasibility: The third factor to consider is feasibility; how well the alternative is likely to work
when assigned to a specific agency in its context. Among many questions one must ask are, “Is
there any agency with the will, skills, and resources to carryout this policy? Can the policy meet
legal and constitutional tests if someone were to file a lawsuit over it? Do the knowledge and
technology exist to enable its implementation? Is enough money likely to be available to fund it
adequately? If the government wants to put something forth, it has to answer to all these questions.
A clear “no” to any one of them would doom that alternative.

Mutual Effects: Fourth, each policy relates in countless ways to other things that government
and private organizations do, and their success and failure are intertwined. Assessment efforts
should thus foresee these mutual effects. For example, what the state/region chooses to do on a
particular issue will be affected by a federal government policy authorizing the state’s action.

Political Acceptability: The fifth criterion is often the overriding one, which puts all of the
alternatives in perspective: political acceptability. A policy is never made simply because it is
“right” or "best." It emerges because it is judged right or best by legislators and executives who
see that it fits the expectations that they and influential others hold of their jobs and of the
government as a whole. This is not to say that they make inferior choices for that reason or that
they are corrupt or irresponsible. Rather, because democracy is a process of shared decision
making, a choice cannot be distinct from the wills of those who join in making that decision. When
there is much disagreement over an issue, the policy may be chosen only after long deliberation
and could well be changed shortly afterward.

Stage Six: Choosing the Alternatives

Choosing alternatives would mean enacting into law a specific package of programs and means of
implementing them. In this step, therefore, policymakers choose one alternative (or a combination)
to become official policy and add the "tools" with which to implement it. Where there is clear
agreement on the law, the means of its administration can be equally clear. For example, in 1961
President John F. Kennedy and Congress set the specific goal that an American was to set foot on
the moon by the end of the decade. But the typical policy is a composite of several objectives,
embodying many compromises among partisans of opposing views.
American legislative bodies put a premium on reaching agreement, not only to secure the simple
majority vote to pass a bill but also to preserve the ongoing working relationships that enable them
to reach agreements on bill after bill. The price of that consensus is often ambiguity, which, while

7
not pleasing all participants, enables them to bring closure to a given issue for the session and
move on to equally urgent business (Johnson, 1992:165).

Congress and state legislatures have an elaborate process that a bill must traverse in order to
become law. Realistically, laws are not "designed" as much as they "evolve." Each participant
responds to the initiatives and reactions of the others, and the enacted policy may deviate from
the intention of its original author. Many laws blend aims and expectations that no one person
would have selected at the beginning. Each new policy alters and supplements existing policies
and so much be carefully fitted into that context, and administrators must work it into all of the
procedures and rules that they currently follow and avoid new conflicts among them.
Policy choice requires “tools of implementation”, which are an integral part of the policy choice.
Basically, a tool is a method or approach used by government to achieve a specific objective. When
a government seeks to increase the access of working parents to day care for their children, it could
choose, first, to operate day-care centers directly with its own personnel. Or, a second option, it
could give grants to community organizations to provide the service. Third, it could give a tax
credit or rebate to parents to cover their out-of pocket child-care costs for whatever facilities they
use. Less likely is use of the fourth tool: requiring employers to operate day-care centers for their
workers. The policy goal and the tool used are interdependent, and political controversies are
motivated by both choices. Nevertheless, legislators often fail to specify the tools to be used, due
to neglect or lack of agreement, and let the administrators select them within broad limits.
Policymakers do not expect that their choice packages will completely "solve" the problem. No
problem remains the same while it is being dealt with. If, by a conducive circumstance, the targeted
problem is minimized by the program, new problems are likely to appear that require different
actions. As more people live longer due to advances in medicine and sanitation, the number of
victims of Alzheimer's disease and other maladies (difficulties) affecting the very old increases,
which in turn calls for more research and long-term care. In other instances, the "solutions" did not
solve much and often created new problems. In either situation, no choice can be seen as
permanent. Even when a long-term commitment is made, as with expensive facilities for urban
transit, policymakers must expect to adjust to new realities in years to come.

[Link]. Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation

The final two stages of the policy process are the "home territory" of administrators, for which
they are directly responsible. Their performances at these stages determine the actual success or
failure of the policy and, to look ahead farther, will shape its probable revisions.

Stage Sven: Implementing the Policy

With the passage of a law or the selection of a policy by other means, the scene of action shifts to
the agencies assigned to carry it out. Policy, before this point, is only an intention, a possibility;
what it becomes in fact happens at this stage. Implementation is the process of realizing public
policy, thereby achieving the public purposes for which the policy was made. Earlier scholars of
public administration argued that implementation is primarily a "technical" task, clearly removed

8
from the political controversies in which the policy was decided. In this view, there should be no
uncertainty about how to implement a properly written law; the task was to devise procedures,
marshal resources, and monitor activities to make sure there was no dishonesty or waste. A
hierarchical structure was to convey the instructions of the top executives down through the
organization and thereafter monitor the results.
A more realistic view of implementation emerged after scholars examined what actually happened
in the controversial programs that governments administered. Case studies on the many new social
programs enacted in the 1960s showed that policies that emerged from legislative bargaining were
often ambiguous or excessively optimistic, required extensive federal-state-local cooperation, and
received inadequate funding. It should have surprised no one that the political controversies and
pressures that attended legislative action continued into the implementation stage, violating that
hallowed neutral ground.

The implementation stage begins as a task is assigned to one or more agencies along with the
authority to spend money, hire personnel, and obtain the other resources necessary. Next, those
agencies make rules and procedures by which to operate. Nonetheless, there is always some degree
of discretion permitted as to means, guidelines, and dates for action. These rules match the tools
chosen to implement the policy. If it provides cash payments to persons, for example, the rule
determines the eligibility of each applicant and how much that person is to receive. Each of the
tools can run into implementation problems if the goal is uncertain, difficult to attain, or wrapped
in political controversy. However, those policies that provide direct services or apply regulations
to persons who differ in their needs and requirements appear to present the greatest challenges.
Stage Eight: Monitoring and Evaluation
At this stage, the policy cycle can return to the beginning; agenda-setting and redefinition of the
problem and goals. When administrators learn what happens as a result of implementing a policy
and evaluate its success, they are moving from the end of one policy cycle to the beginning of a
new one. The result of the evaluation process, be it failure or success, can reshape policy. Hence,
evolution activity may restart the policy process (problem formulation) in order to continue,
modify or terminate existing policy.

Evaluation of Public Policy is an attempt to assess the content and effects of a policy on those for
whom it is intended. Often policy evaluation occurs throughout the policy process, not necessarily
at its termination stage. There are three types of policy evaluation, namely:
Policy impact evaluation: In an assessment of the overall program’s impact and effectiveness,
the emphasis is on determining the extent to which programs are successful in achieving basic
objectives, and on the comparative evaluation of national programs.
(a) Policy strategy evaluation: This evaluation is an assessment of the relative effectiveness
of program strategies and variables. The emphasis is on determining which strategies,
methods, and procedures are most productive or effective.

9
 (b) Project appraisal: This process involves an assessment of individual site visits and other
activities with emphasis on managerial and operational efficiency. While discussing policy
evaluation, ones must first understand the basic differences between policy output and
policy outcomes.

Policy output refers to the quantifiable actions of the government, which can be measured in
concrete terms, for instances, construction of government offices, schools, public parks, highways,
payment of welfares benefits, operation of hospitals and prisons. These activities can be measured
in concrete terms, but figures reveal very little about the real impact of the policy.

Policy outcome on the other hand is the qualitative impact of public policies on the lives of people.
Knowing how much is spent on pupils in a school system on a per capita basis will reveal nothing
consuming the effects schooling has on the cognitive abilities of students, let alone the social
consequences of the educational system.
However, broadly policy evaluation requires knowledge of what is to be accomplished within a
given policy (policy objectives), how to do it (strategy) and what has been accomplished towards
attainment of the objectives (impact or outcomes). The most useful method of policy evaluation
for policymakers and administrators is the systematic evaluation to determine the cause and effect
relationships and rigorously measure the impact of policy. It is, of course, often impossible to
measure quantitatively the impact of public policies, especially social policies with any real
precision. There are certain barriers that create problems for policy evaluation, which may include:
• Uncertainty over policy goals,
• Difficulty in the determination of causality,
• Diffused policy impacts, and
• Difficulties in data-acquisition

Uncertainty over policy goals: When the goals of a policy are unclear or diffused, policy
evaluation becomes a difficult task. This situation is often a product of the policy adoption process.
Since support of a majority coalition is often needed to secure adoption of a policy, it is often
necessary to appeal to as wide as spectrum of persons and interests (often conflicting) as possible.
Officials in different positions in the policy system such as legislators and administrators, or
national and state officials, may define goals differently and act accordingly.

Difficulty in the determination of causality: Systematic evaluation requires that changes in real
life conditions must demonstrably be caused by policy actions. But the mere fact that action “A”
is taken, and condition “B” is developed does not necessarily mean that a cause-and-effect
relationship sexists, for example, the relationship between crime prevention measures and
occurrence of crime is not a simple cause-and-effect relationship. The determination of causality
between actions, especially in complex social and economic matters, is a difficult task.

10
Diffused policy impacts: Policy actions may affect a wide spectrum of people both in the target
and non-target categories and also may have many intended or unintended consequences. Welfare
programs may affect not only the poor, but also others such as taxpayers, bureaucrats and lower
income groups. The effects on those groups may be symbolic or material, tangible or intangible.

Difficulties in data-acquisition: A shortage of accurate and relevant facts and statistics may always
hinder the work of a policy evaluator. Thus, mathematical models may predict that effect of a tax-
cut on economic activity, but suitable data to indicate its actual impact on the economy is difficult
to obtain. Official resistances to provide all types of relevant data may also prove to be a hindrance.
Policy evaluation means commenting on the merits and demerits of a policy. Agency and program
officials, bureaucrats and others are naturally going to be concerned about the possible political
consequences of evaluation. If the results do not come out in their favor or show them in a wrong
perspective, their careers may be in jeopardy. Consequently, government officials may discourage
evaluation studies, refuse access to data, and show incomplete records, or create various other
hurdles in the researcher’s process of policy evaluation.

Within government, policy evaluation is carried on in a variety of ways and by a variety of actors.
Sometimes it is a systematic activity, at other times rather haphazard or sporadic. In some
instances policy evaluation has become institutional; in others it is informal and unstructured. A
few agencies of official policy evaluation are the legislatures and their committees, the audit office,
commissions of enquiry, the planning commission and departmental evaluation reports. Besides,
there is much policy evolution carried on outside the government. The communication media,
university scholars, private research institutions, pressure groups and public interest organizations
make evaluation of policies that have effect on public officials to some extent. These also provide
the larger public with information, publicize policy action or inaction, advocate enactment or
withdrawal of policies and often effectively voice the demands of the weaker or underprivileged
sections of the public.

The legislatives process: One of the declared functions of the legislatures in democratic countries
is the security and evaluation of the application, administration, and execution of laws or policies.
Policy evaluation is exercised through a number of techniques:
(a) Questions and debates,
(b) Various motions in parliaments like call attention, non-confidences,
(c) Committee hearings and investigations, and
(d) The budgetary process.
In the course of these activities, legislatures reach conclusions regarding the efficiency,
effectiveness and impact of particular programs and policies-conclusions that can haves serious
consequences for the policy process.

11
The audit process: The auditor’s office as in India and the USA, has broad statutory authority to
audit the operation and fiancés activates of government agencies, evaluate their programs and
report their findings to parliament.

Administrative agencies: All government departments prepare their internal evaluation reports
which provide an opportunity to appraise the working of the programs and projects undertaken by
the department. For example, the Budget Division of the Finance Ministry has the power of
overview the working of the plans and programs of all ministries and departments while framing
the budget estimates for every department. Similarly, every department while sending its own
demand for grants to the Finance Ministry evaluates in the process its annual plans, programs and
performances. The Organization and Methods Division in ministries also often indirectly perform
the task of policy evaluation.

Commissions: The Planning Commission, the Finance Commission, the Administrative Reform
Commissions and various ad hoc commissions that are set up by the government also play an
important role in public policy evaluation by presenting their detailed research reports on the
consequences and impacts of particular government policies.

3.2. Actors in the Policy Process

Actors can be defined as the players involved in the policy formulation process. There is to advise,
give inputs, debate, discuss, recommend and propose adjustments and issues to be included in
public policies. Actors include private individuals, groups, political parties, nongovernmental
organizations, community-based organizations, regional structures and organizations, etc.
Combinations of actors involved in a particular policy are collectively known as policy
subsystems.

Their interests and capabilities in any given policy process are influenced by the institutional
contexts in which they operate. Institutions can be formal or informal structures, laws, norms,
codes of conduct, etc. They are broadly categorized into political, economic, social, cultural and
religious systems. The institutions have a major influence on the behavior of actors in the public
policy making process. These institutional contexts form the policy environment.

Theories such as the Public Choice Theory, Pluralist and Corporatist Theories are often used to
explain the behavior of actors in the policy process. In the Public Choice Theory, policy actors are
expected to champion public interest. You remember how we defined this concept above and the
problems associated with it. In reality, actors operate like agents whose behavior is mainly
motivated not by public interest but private self-interest and capabilities. Despite the fact, they are
conditioned by the institutional environment within which they are operating. Pluralist and
corporatist theories use the ideas of primacy and dominancy to explain how institutional groupings
give a lot of power and influence on policy actors. For instance, legislatress belonging to a

12
particular political party may team up to oppose or push ahead certain agendas using the power of
numbers. This is common in legislatures which are strictly divided along party lines.

3.2.1. Categorization of Policy Actors

It is not very easy to distinguish among different actors because an infinite variety of actors who
may be members of the policy subsystem may participate in a particular policy. Membership to a
particular policy subsystem is also not fixed but varies with time, policy sector or domain as well
as with countries. However, policy actors come from the state sector or machinery as well as the
society at large. We can therefore categorize policy actors basing on whether they are from the
state or societal. You are recommended to refer to the classification by Howlett and Ramesh
(1995). They categorized policy actors into elected and appointed officials, interest groups,
research organizations and mass media. You could have already possibly noticed that the first
groups of actors are housed within the state machinery while the last three are drawn from the
society.

As indicated above the classification s neither always easy nor conclusive. For instance, an
individual like a minister may be both an appointed as well as elected official. Such an actor sits
both in the legislature and executive. This complicates the situation because such a person is
responsible for spearheading a particular policy while in the executive and is also expected to
critique it in the legislature. Nonetheless, while this classification cannot be conclusive, it
emphasizes the fact that state actors must not work in isolation in policymaking but should also
involve other non-state actors. Both state and society form the principal niches from which
members of specific policy subsystems are drawn.

In between the state and society actors there also lie two important groups of actors, the voters and
political parties. Although voters play a very limited part in the policy process, their role in
democratic systems is to provide a platform for public participation in the political and policy
process. Voting affords the voters the opportunity to express their choice of government and also
empowers them to pressure political parties and candidates seeking their votes to offer attractive
policy packages. This is however a very indirect attempt to influence the policy process, since even
in the democratic systems, policies are only made by the voters' representatives, who once elected
are not compelled to observe the preference of their voters in their day-to-day functioning.

In reality as you shall notice later on in thin discussion, elected representatives (legislators) most
often participate very little in the policy process, which tends to be dominated by experts in the
specific fields than legislative generalists. It is also crucial to note that candidates and political
parties also do no run elections only on the basis of their political platforms. Even in situations
where that could possibly happen, voters do not normally vote on the basis of the proposed policies
alone. Other factors such as coercion by political parties (intimidation and victimization) also play
a very influential role in determining the behavior of voters and their ultimate choice of candidates.

13
Politicians at times do heed public opinion when devising policies but do not always respond to or
accommodate it.

Political parties significantly impact on public policy, but they also do so indirectly. It has been
observed that they are not always represented in policy subsystems although their institutional
powers do influence the actors in the subsystem to which they are affiliated. This is often evident
in policies run by governments composed of representatives of different political parties. However,
the significance of parties usually comes under serious challenge from specialists in the employ of
interest groups and research institutions or even from within the government itself.

Governments which are clearly run along partisan lines often face a lot of challenges from experts
from watchdogs in specialized fields such as constitutional law, gender, environment, etc. A good
example is the Zimbabwean situation where the position of the government is always challenged
by, a constitutional watchdog, the National Constitutional Assembly (NCA), in issues concerning
the constitution. Although generally governments have over the years become increasingly
complex to be influenced by political parties, this has and is always the norm in most developing
countries Policies adopted by the government often exhibit strong influence of party ideology. In
Ethiopian, because of the influence of socialist ideology, government policies such as the PASDEP
reflect aspects of an egalitarian approach. Political parties influence public policy, through their
members in the executive and the legislature. However, party members particularly in the
executive may ignore their official party platforms while debating policies. However, the
consequences may be very grave especially in situations where party members are subjected to
party discipline.
From the above classification of state and societal actors, the following can be categorized as the
main actors. We begin by discussing the main state actors and then look at those from the society.

(A) Elected Officials

Elected state actors/officials mainly consist of members of the executive/cabinet and the
legislature.

(B) Executive /Cabinet

The executive derives its central role in the policy making process from its constitutional authority
to govern the country. Even though other actors are involved, the ultimate responsibility to make
and implement policies lies with the executive. These are very few checks on the executive from
the legislature, particularly in situations as one described above where cabinet ministers are also
members of parliament. The executive always has a wide area of discretion beyond legislative
controls.

Over and above the prerogative in policy matters, the executive also possesses a wide range of
resources to strengthen its position. In situations of unbalanced powers in policy formulation, the

14
executive has unheralded control of information. Such information can be withheld, manipulated
and released in such manners that help to bolster the executive's positions and weaken those of
other actors, thereby making the situation more accountable.

For instance, where the media is open, information can be easily accessed and used. State and non-
state actors would always be aware of what is happening around them. Their contributions to the
policy process would be informed by up-to-date information. However, there is also the need for
the various actors to carry out detailed research so as to get accurate information before
contributing to policy debates.

In some situations, the executive comes up with laws and regulations that regulate access to
information by other actors. This is common in countries with strict media laws as in Zimbabwe.
Here the media community is highly controlled that non state actors are always starved of
necessary and critical information. This weakens their position in terms of giving a balanced
approach to policy debates.

The executive in many cases also controls over the fiscal resources. Under situations where
members of the cabinet also sit in the legislature, and influence the approval of national budgets,
the executive would also enjoy wider areas of discretion for the government. In not few countries
where democracy is little developed, there is always some doubt that national budgets may not
undergo honest distributions. Have you ever really questioned this? Resources are presented for
legislative approval, without affording the latter sufficient time for comments and inputs.
However, in liberal democracies and federal systems like in Ethiopia, the responsible ministry
consults with other state and non-state actors in terms of what the budget would be composed of.
In some countries, some programs begin at the central level while regional structures are only
consulted later on. This show that people in some regions happen reluctant to actively contribute
to the evaluation of the capacity building program.

In situations of unbalanced power levels in the policy process, the executive always come out the
inner. It uses all the above explained resources at its disposal, to influence other actors to endorse
its policy proposals. For instance, it has the power to influence the timing of the introduction and
passage of laws in the legislature. This confers it it with power and control over the political
agenda. Such scenarios affect policy cycles, where certain policies are reserved to be pushed
through during or before elections while the more unfavorable ones are promulgated after the
voting period. Such timing is often deliberately mapped out to remove any obstacles in the way of
the government's intended programs.

Despite the above merits conferred on the executive in policy formulation, they should not be over
exaggerated. The success associated with undertaking the above depends on contexts. Firstly, it is
crucial to note that most governments in the developing world do not have the organizational

15
capacities to make coherent policies and effectively implement them. This is usually reflected in
terms of uncoordinated and counter-productive policy strategies among different ministries or
within different departments of the same ministry. Such scenarios cause unnecessary and costly
contradictions, conflicts and wastage of resources and efforts. This is one way in which polices
fail. For example, in countries where new cit proclamations are not uniformly implemented among
different regions; this might create problems in terms of evaluation of the progress of these urban
development and decentralization programs. Can you examine this situation in your locality?

(C) The Legislature

The role of the legislature is to hold governments accountable to the public by debating policy
decisions before they are adopted. Such a function creates the opportunity for members of
parliament to influence policies. Legislatures are crucial forums where social problems are
highlighted and policies to address them demanded. The legislators vote and debate during the
approval of government bills, policies decisions and the requisite budgets to fund policy
implementation. In so doing, they indirectly get the chance to influence policies and demand
amendments to certain decisions. Legislators also raise and discuss problems of implementation
and request policy and program adjustments.

The legislature's policy potential is, however, weakened in situations where the executive
dominance is high. This is very common when members of the cabinet are also parliamentarians.
The situation is even made worse in scenarios of majority governments, where the legislature is
strictly divided along party lines, and it is characterized by high levels of political discipline among
party members. Such situations have serious impacts upon the internal organization of the
legislature as well as the behavior and role played by the legislative committees in the policy
process. This is the reason why in most developing countries, practically most laws proposed by
the executive are frequently adopted by the legislature. In such a case the legislature may be
compelled to support the bills proposed by the executive.

The situation may be different in minority governments where the legislature may be expected to
shape executive bills. The internal organization of the legislature also significantly determines the
legislature’s role in the policy process. The role of independent legislature is usually greatly
impaired where one party enjoys a clear majority. On the other hand, the existence of several small
coalition parties in the legislature grants the legislators an opportunity to express their opinion and
force the executive to compromise. In the former case legislators may just rubber-stamp whatever
the executive would have proposed.

At this point we need however, to understand that policy functions are not performed on the
legislative floors. Instead, they are delegated to portfolio committees established along functional
lines and areas of expertise. Such committees may build considerable expertise in the areas with
which they deal, there by permitting the legislature to exercise influence over policy formulation

16
and implementation. This is however only possible where such committees remain operational for
a substantial period of time. There is also no guarantee that the executive would take heed of such
committees' recommendations. There is hence, the need for members of such parliamentary
portfolio committees to have some measure of autonomy from their political party lines.

The degree of legislative involvement and influence in policy formulation also depends upon the
nature of problems under consideration. For instance, highly technical issues are unlikely to
involve generalist legislators who may not understand the problem or solution or may not see the
political benefit associated with pursuing the matter. This is the case with issues of national
security and foreign policies. Such matters are usually conducted under highly secretive
circumstances outside the legislature. similarly, problems requiring urgent attention such as
humanitarian crises do not often require parliamentary debate, since there will just be no time for
that.

Legislative influence is often higher in dealing with policies relating to allocation or redistribution
of resources or income, propagation and maintenance of certain symbolic values and issues of
multiculturalism. These issues are characterized by less executive resistance. The latter is usually
more willing to take the legislature's views into account. Faced with these limitations, legislatures
often play a very limited role in the policy process. while some individual legislators may, due to
their expertise or special interests in the problem, be included in the policy subsystem, legislatures
in general are usually insignificant actors in the making and implementation of public policies.

(D) Appointed Officials

These are collectively known as the bureaucracy or civil service. Their main role is to assist the
executive in performing of its tasks. Although they are often called civil servants, in reality their
roles actually go beyond those of 'servants'. Instead, they are the cornerstones in the policy process
as well as the central figures in many policy subsystems. The bureaucracy actually performs policy
making and implementation functions once performed by the legislature and executive.
Government functions have over the years become increasingly complex and hence inundating on
the part of the executive. As a result, the bureaucracy, due to its qualities and characteristics, has
more often than not taken over these functions. Generally, the bureaucracy consists of a large pool
of specialists in many disciplines, who have the time and expertise to deal with a policy issue on a
continuous basis. In Ethiopia, although issues of capacity are still critical in the civil service, it is
a fact that the civil service houses professionals with a diverse background. Some are financial,
management, engineering, information technology, etc, specialists, who have a lot of experience
in their areas of operation.

The bureaucracy's power and influence in the policy process is based on a number of factors.
Firstly, the law mandates the civil servants to perform certain functions. In so doing the latter are
conferred with wide discretion to make decisions on behalf of the state. Secondly, the bureaucracy

17
as unmatched access to material resources for pursuing their organizational and at times personal
objectives if they so wish. In most countries, the public service has the largest fleet of vehicles and
gets equally large proportions of the national budget. World over the government is the largest
single spender. This gives public officials unheralded power to voice in policy areas involving
significant government expenditure. Thirdly the bureaucracy is a repository of a wide range of
skills and expertise, which makes it a premier organization in the society. It employs large numbers
of various professionals, hired for their expertise in their areas of specialization.

Civil service officials usually deal with the same issues over very long periods of time, thereby
developing unique insights into many problems. Modern bureaucracies have also access to large
quantities of information on different aspects of the society. Such information may be deliberately
gathered or finds its way into the bureaucracy simply as a result of its central location in
government. The permanency of the bureaucracy and the long tenure of its members often give it
an edge over its superiors, the elected executive. Policy deliberations usually happen in secrete
within the bureaucracy, thereby denying other policy actors the opportunity to mount opposition
to its plans and policy proposals.

Despite all these advantages conferred upon the bureaucracy, its powers need not be
overemphasized or generalized. It is very important to note that despite its leverage over the
executive in terms of skills, the later still remains the boss. The executive's control over the
bureaucracy also increases once the former feels that the latter is 'forgetting who the master is' by
regularly opposing policy options preferred by the elected politicians.
Besides the influence and control from the executive, the bureaucracy itself is also not homogenous
but rather a collection of organizations, each with its own interests, perspectives and standard
operating procedures. This makes arriving at a unified decision very difficult if not impossible. It
is also not uncommon to encounter bureaucratic conflicts within departments. Such conflicts often
occur along functional, personal, technical and political lines. In some cases, the executive is
summoned to intervene and resolve such intra-and inter- bureaucratic conflicts. Such conflicts and
heterogeneity weaken the bureaucracies' capacity to significantly control and influence the policy
process.

(E) Interest Groups

They constitute one of the largest and diverse groups of policy actors. Realities in the modern
governments enable them to play quite a significant role in the policy process, which has over the
years been a predominant domain of the state. Interest groups have a number of merits, which
better position them to exert significant influence on the policy process. Firstly, they are usually
endowed ith knowledge, especially information that may not be readily available to other actors.
Interest group members usually know most about their areas of concern. We should also remember
that policy making is an information intensive process. This puts interest groups in a position to

18
play crucial roles in the policy process. Politicians and bureaucracies often find the information
provided by these groups’ indispensable for the performance of their duties.

Secondly, interest groups also possess organizational and political resources. Some groups
financially contribute to sympathetic political parties and politicians. They are also directly and
indirectly campaign and deliver votes to the sympathetic candidates who they think would support
their cause in government. The political impacts of such interest groups on the formulation and
implementation of public policies depends upon their organizational resources. Ceteris paribus,
large and well-organized groups are likely to be taken seriously by the government compared to
smaller and fragmented ones. Therefore, some interest groups may form coalitions or peak
associations, consisting of groups with similar interests (such as human rights groups, gender
equality organizations, environmental protection groups etc), to enhance their level of influence
on the policy process.

Thirdly, some groups are well funded thereby allowing them to be able to hire professionals on a
permanent bias as well as make substantial financial contributions to political parties during
elections. Therefore, differences in financial endowments also influence the capacity of different
organizations, to influence the policy process. In democratic societies the above-elaborated factors
make interest groups key members of policy subsystems, and hence ensure that their views are
unlikely to be ignored, though this is often not guaranteed. At times the executive disregards the
views of such groups particularly when the latter are known to always oppose the governments'
proposed policies.

(F) Research Organizations

These mainly consist of the academic research and education institutions and think tanks. The
latter are independent organizations, which engaged in multi-disciplinary research intended to
influence public policies. Think tanks maintain an interest in a broad range of policy problems and
employ o wide variety of expertise to enable them to develop more comprehensive perspectives of
the problems. Their research is directed at proposing practical solutions to public problems or
finding evidence to support the ideology-driven position they advocate for This feature
differentiates them from academic institutions which are more specialized and therefore do not
necessarily seek practical solutions to public problems. Research by academic institutions is rarely
meant to influence public policy making directly but to bring critical insight to explain the nature
of public problems and provide some avenues of solving them. Such research results are usually
readily accessible to those who may want to use them.

Think tanks have a certain level of partisanship, although they try in as much as possible to
maintain a image of intellectual autonomy from the government or other political parties. Failure
to do so usuall forces policy makers not to take them seriously. This is the case with National
Constitutional Assembly (NCA), in Zimbabwe, which was seen as being strongly aligned towards

19
the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), party, and government. Think tanks,
however, try as much as possible to target their research and recommendations at policicians
expected to be favorably disposed to the ideas being expounded. The former seek originality in
their ideas and also attempt to publicize them. They come up with sustained critiques and analyses,
which can have notable impacts on public policy.

(G) Mass Media

Actors in the mass media provide a crucial link between the state and the society. Such a position
allows them the strongly influence the preferences of the government as well as the society, as far
as public problems and the proposed solutions are concerned. The role of mass media in the policy
process is usually sporadic and marginal. The main role lies in their capacity to report problems,
thereby combining the roles of passive reporters with those of active analysts and advocates for
possible solutions. In reporting on progress and problems, the reporter often goes to great depths
in locating less obvious problems, defining their nature and scope, and at times even suggesting
their solutions. This makes the role of the media in agenda setting very significant, though in
principle.

The media's portrayal of public problems and proposed solutions often conditions how they are
understood by the public and the government. The impact is to effectively shut out alternative
views and making the choice of the former more likely. We need also to remember that most
parliamentary debates are usually based on stories in the newspapers and other media. However,
news reporting is not always an objective mirror of reality, undistorted by bias or inaccuracy. The
news reporters and editors are newsmakers as they are the ones who define what is worthy of
reporting and the aspect of the case that needs to be highlighted. Policy issues, which may be
presented as just an interesting story may be viewed by the public as more important than would
have otherwise been the case without the reporter's presentation. Thus, individuals and groups who
are able to present problems to the media in package forms are more likely to have their views
projected than their succinct counterparts.

The role of the media in influencing policy processes needs not be over emphasized, to the under-
estimation of the power of other actors. It has been observed that other actors also have the
resources to counteract media influence. For instance, policy makers are often very resourceful.
They therefore at times intelligently use the resources to effectively push for their own interests
and ideas in terms of what they perceive as important and feasible policy options. They also use
their official and political powers to influence the media to present information to their own
advantage. Public officials as a successful interest groups often provide selective information to
the media to bolster their own causes. In some instances where there are strict controls, the media
might actually be instructed on what information to publicizes as well as how to publicize it. Such
scenarios cripple the role of the media and its influence on the other actors.

20