A short note on Concepts Public Policy.

1. CHAPTER- I
INTRODUCTION
„Public policy‟ as an academic pursuit emerged in the beginning of 1950s and since then it
has been acquiring new dimensions, and is struggling hard to acknowledge the status of a
discipline in the comity of social sciences. As a study of products of government, policy forms a
significant component in many a course and programme in numerous disciplines- political science,
public administration, economics, and management. So rapid is the growth that many researchers,
teachers, public administrators now feel that it is becoming more and more unmanageable. The
disciplines required to comprehend public policy cut right across the old academic lines of
demarcation. Indeed, it is this interdisciplinary quality which makes the field of public policy
interesting and thought- provoking.
„Public Policy‟ is a concept now much in vogue. It is a frequently used term in our daily life
and in our academic literature, where we often make references to the national health policy, the
new education policy, wage policy, agricultural policy, and American or French policy and so on.
It is the area which had to do with those spheres which are also labeled as public. The concept of
public policy presupposes that there is a domain of life which is not private or purely individual, but
held in common.
In the past, studies on public policy were dominated by researchers and students of
political science who largely concentrated on the institutional structure and philosophical
justification of the government. The focus was rarely on the policies themselves. Political science
wastosomeextentpreoccupiedwiththe activitiesofthevarious political institutionsandgroupsin
relation to their success in the pursuit of political power. It hardly recognized the role which such
organizations played towards the formulation of policy as one of its main concerns. Yet the policy
is an important element of the politicalprocess.
Thomas Dye, a leading scholar of policy analysis, says: “Traditional (political science)
studies described the institutions in which public policy was formulated. But unfortunately the
linkages between important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy were
largelyunexplored.” Hefurther believes that todaythefocus of political scienceisshifting to public
policy- “to the description and explanation of the causes and consequences of government
activity”.While theconcern of political science is about processes by which public policy was
determined, has increased, most students of public administration would acknowledge that the
public servants themselves are intimately involved in the shaping of the policies. The study of public
administration has hitherto tended to concentrate on the machinery for the implementation of
given policies. It has attended to the organization of public authorities, the behaviour of public
servants and increasingly, the methods of resource allocation, administration and review. With
such an approach, it is difficult to determine much about the way policy isformulated, although it is
generally contended that the experience of policy implementation feeds back into the furtherance
of policy- making process. But public policy is more „political‟ than public administration. It is an

2. effort to apply political science to public affairs but has concerns with processes inside the field of
public administration.
`In brief, paststudies on public policy have been mainly dominated by scholars of scholars
of political science and public administration and have tended to concentrate more on the
contentofpolicy process,theprocessofitsformulationanditsimplementation. Thestudyofpublic
policy has evolved into what is virtually a new branch of the social sciences- that so called policy
sciences. This concept of policy sciences was first formulated by Harold Lasswell in 1951. Today
the policy sciences have gone far beyond new and naïve aspirations for societally relevant
knowledge.
CONCEPTS OF PUBLIC AND POLICY
The Idea of Public
It is first important to understand the concept of „Public‟ for a discussion of public policy. We often
use such terms as „public interest‟, „public sector‟, „public opinion‟, „public health‟ and so on. The
starting point is that „Public Policy‟ has to do with those spheres which are so labeled as „public‟ as
opposed to spheres involving the idea of „private‟. The concept of public policy presupposes that
there is an area or domain of life which is not private or purely individual, but held in common.
Public dimension is generally referred to „public ownership‟ or control for „public purpose‟. The
public comprises that domain of human activity which is regarded as requiring governmental
intervention or common action. However there has always been a conflict between what is public
and what is private.
W.F. Baberargues that thepublic sectorhas tenkeydifferences from the private sector:
i. It faces more complex and ambiguous tasks;
ii. It has more problems in implementing its decisions;
iii. It employs more people with a wider range of motivations;
iv. It is more concerned with securing opportunities or capacities;
v. Itismoreconcernedwithcompensatingformarketfailure;
vi. It engages in activities with greater symbolic significance;
vii. Itisheldtostricterstandardsofcommitmentandlegality;
viii. It has a greater opportunity to respond to issues of fairness;
ix. It must operate or appear to operate in the public interest;
x. It must maintain minimal levels of public support above that required in private industry.
Public administration emerged as an instrument of the state for securing public interest rather
than private interests, whereas for the political economists only markets could balance private
and public interests, the new liberalism was based upon a belief that public administration was a
more rational; means of promoting the public interest. For Max Weber the growth of
bureaucracy was due to the process of rationalization in industrial society. The civil servant was
therationalfunctionarywhosemaintaskwastocarryoutthewillthoseelectedbythepeople.
Public bureaucracy was therefore, different to that which existed in the private sector because it
was motivated to serve the public interest. The rational public interest argument started eroding
after the 2nd
world war. To Herbert Simon bureaucracies exhibited a large measure of
irrationality or at least bounded rationality. To Muller bureaucrats did not function in the public
interest and displayed the capacity to have distinct goals of their own. In this connection a
comparative study of bureaucracy by Aberbach observed: “The last quarter in this century is
witnessing the virtual disappearance of the Weberian distinction between the roles of the
politicianandthe bureaucrat, producingwhat maybelabeledapure hybrid”. ThePublic and
private sectors reveal themselves as overlapping and interacting, rather than as well- defined
categories.
The concept of Policy
Like the idea of „public‟, the concept of policy is not a precise term. Policy denotes, among other
elements, guidance for action. It may take the form of:
i. A declaration of goals;
ii. A declaration of course of action;
iii. A declaration of general purpose; and
iv. An authoritative decision.
Hogwood and Gunn specified ten uses of the term „policy‟:
i. As a label for field of activity;
ii. As an expression of desired state ofaffairs;
iii. As specific proposals;
iv. As decisions of government;
v. As formal authorization
vi. As a prgramme;
vii. As output;
viii. As outcome;
ix. As a theory or model;
x. As a process.
Unfortunately the policy itself is something which takes different forms. There is thrust to designate
policyas the„outputs‟ of thepoliticalsystem, andin alesser degreeto definepublic policyas
„more or less interdependent policies dealing with many different activities. Studies of public
policy areas, on the contrary, have tended to focus on the evaluation of policy decisions in terms
of specified values- a rational rather than a policy analysis. The magnitude of this problem can
be recognized from the other definitions, which have been advanced by scholars in this field.
Y.D ror, one of the leading students of the policy sciences, defines policies as “genral
directives on the main lines of action to be followed”. Similarly Peter Self defines policies as
“changing directives as to how tasks should be interpreted and performed”.
To Sir Geoffrey Vickers, policies are “decisions giving direction, coherence and continuity
to the courses of action for which the decision- making body is responsible”.

3. Carl Friedrich regards policy as “….a proposed course of action of a person, gropu, or
government within a given environment providing obstacles and opportunities which the policy
was proposed to utilize and overcome in an effort to reach a goal or realize an objective or a
purpose”.
James Anderson suggests that policy be regarded as “ a purposive course of action
followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern”.
Taken as a whole, policy may be defined as a purposive course of action taken or
adoptedbythoseinpowerinpursuitofcertaingoalsorobjectives.Itshouldbe addedhere that
public policies are the policies adopted and implemented by government bodies and officials.
DavidEastondefinespublicpolicyas“theauthoritativeallocationofvalues forthewholesociety”.
Public policies are formulated by what Easton calls the “authorities” in a political system,
namely, “elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judges, administrators, councilors,
monarchs, and the like”. According to him, these are the persons who “engage in the daily affairs
of a political system”, are “recognized by most members of the system as having responsibility for
thesematters” and take actions that are “accepted as bindingmost of the time by most of the
members so long as they act within the limits of their roles”. Public policy focuses on what J. Dewy
(1927) once described as “the public and its problems”.
ThomasDye‟sDefinitionstates:Publicpolicyiswhatevergovernmentschoosetodoornot
todo”.Similarly,RobertLineberrysaysthat“itiswhatgovernmentsdoandfailtodo-toandfor
their citizens”. In these definitions there is divergence between what governments decide to do
and what they actually do.
NATURE OF PUBLIC POLICY
A Policy may be general or specific, broad or narrow, simple or complex, public or private,
written or unwritten, explicit or implicit, discretionary or detailed, and qualitative or quantitative.
Here the emphasis is on “Public Policy” which is what a government chooses as guidance for
action. From the view point of public policy, activities of government can be put into three
categories.
First, activities which are attached to specified policies; second, activities which are
general in nature; and third, activities which are based on vague and inconsistent policies.
However, in practice, a government rarely has a set of guiding principles for all its activities.
Important public policies areoftenmademoreexplicit, particularlywhere theissueof alaw, a
regulation, or a plan and the like isinvolved.
A Public Policymaycover amajor portion of its activities which are consistent withthe
development policy. Socio- Economic Development, Equality, Liberty, Self- reliance or similar broad
principles of guidance for action may be adopted as a development policy or national goal. A
Public Policy may be narrow, covering a specific activity,such as Family Planning. A Public Policy
may also be appliedto all peopleina country or it may be limitedto asection of its people.
Besides, each level of government- Federal, Sub- National, Zonal, Woreda and Kebele
level-mayhaveitsspecificorgeneralpolicies.Thenthereare„MegaPolicies‟.GeneralGuidelines
to be followed by all specific policies are termed as “mega policy”. According to Dror, „Mega
policies‟ form a kind of master policy, as distinct from concrete discrete policies, and involve the
establishment of overall goals to serve as guidelines for the larger sets of concrete and specific
policies. All policies generally contain definite goals or objectives in more implicit or explicit terms.
Policies have outcomes that may or not have been foreseen.
Public policies in modern political system are purposive or goal-oriented statements. Again
a Public Policy may be either positive or negative in form. In its Positive form, it may involve some
form of overt government action to deal with a particular problem. On the other hand, in its
negative form, it involves a decision by public servants not to take action on some matter on which
a government order is sought. Public Policy has a legally coercive quality that‟s citizens accept as
legitimate, e.g., Taxes must be paid unless one wants to run the risk of fine or Jail sentences. This
legally coercive quality of public policies makes public organizations distinct from the private
organizations.
The nature of policy as a purposive course of action can be better or more fully understood if
it is compared with the following relatedconcepts
1. Policy- Making and Decision Making
2. Policies and Goals
3. Policy making and Planning
4. Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy
5. Policy Analysis and Policy Management
6. Policy Inputs,PolicyOutputs and PolicyOutcomes
Policy- Making and Decision- Making
Policy- making is closely related to decision- making. However, it is not same as decision-
making. Policy- Making does involve decision- making, but a decision does not necessarily
constitute a policy. Decision- making often involves an identification of a Problem, a careful
analysis of possible alternatives and a selection of one alternative for action. Generally decisions
are taken by the administrators in their day-to- day work within the existing framework of policy.
The Policy decisions eventually taken thus provide a sense of direction to the courses of
administrative action.
Anderson says: “Public decisions are decisions made by public officials that authorize or
give direction and content to public policy actions”. These may include decisions to issue executive
actions”. These may include decisions to issue executive orders, promulgate administrative rules, or
make important judicial interpretations of laws.
Policies and Goals
Policies are distinct from goals and can be distinguished from the latter as means from
ends. By goals or objectives one means the ends towards which actions are directed. It is
reasonable to expect that a policy indicates the direction towards which action is sought. Policies
involve a deliberate choice of actions designed to attain those goals and objectives. The actions
can take the form of directives to do or refrain from certain actions. Public Policy is about means

4. and ends, which have to have a relationship to each other. To say that policy- making involves a
choice of goals or objectives is to argue that it deals with values.
Policies as well asvalues are chosenunderthe influenceof values. Decision makers often
actonthebasisoftheirbeliefsorperceptionsofthepublicinterestconcerningwhatisaproper
or morally correct public policy.
Thus goals and objectives depend on the values of the policy- makers. This could be
explained in the following manner:
Many students of policy sciences would like to apply science or reason (making use of the
rationality model) for the determination of policy objectives and goals. They try to solve problems
mainlybyusingsuchobjectivemethodsasoperationsresearchorcost-benefitanalysis soaslimit
policy objectives. Such an approach, based on a rationality model can, however, be applied only
to a limited number of problems.
Policy- making and Planning
Policy- making must be distinguished from Planning. Broadly speaking, a plan is a
programme of action for attaining definite goals or objectives. In this sense, a plan is a policy
statement and planning implies policy-making. Often the goals or policies of a plan are not
stipulated in the plan documents. They may be stated only in very general or vague terms, or are
found to be internally inconsistent or contradictory. A National Development Plan, broadly
speaking, is a collection of targets or individual projects which, when put together, may not
constitute an integrated scheme.
Allocation of resources for investments and showing of targets in different sectors of the
economyareconsideredtobeatthecoreofplanning.However,ithasbeenaptlystatedthata
plan needs a proper policy framework. Targets cannot be achieved just because investments are
providedfor. Theyhavetobedrawn withintheframework ofPolicies.Successfulpoliciesmakefor
successful plans and administration.
Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy
A distinction may be drawn between Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy. Policy Analysis
is nothing more than finding out the impact of policy. It is a technique to measure organizational
effectivenessthroughanexamination andevaluationoftheeffectofaprogram. “PolicyAnalysisis
a systematic and data- based alternative to intuitive judgments about the effects of policy or
policy options. It is used:
© for problem assessment and monitoring;
© as a „before the fact‟ decision tool;and
© for evaluation”.
PolicyAnalysisisnotthesameasprescribingwhatpoliciesgovernments oughttopursue.
Policy Advocacy is concerned with what governments ought to do, or bringing about changes in
what they do through discussion, persuasion, organization and activism. On the other hand, Policy
Analysis is concerned with examination of the impact of policy using the tools of systematic inquiry.
Thomas Dye labels “Policy Analysis” as the “the thinking man‟s response” to demands. The
policy Analysis has three basic concerns. First, its primary concern is the “explanation” of policy
rather than the “prescription” of policy. Secondly, it involves a rigorous search for the causes and
consequences of public policies through the use of tools of systematic inquiry. Thirdly, it involves an
effort todevelop and test general propositions aboutthe causes and consequences of public
policies. Thus Policy Analysis can be both scientific as well as relevant to the problems of society.
The role of Policy Analysis is not to replace but to supplement political Advocacy. As Wildavsky
(1980) has argued:
“The purpose of policy analysis is not to eliminate advocacy but to raise the level of
argument among contending interests… The end result, hopefully, would be higher quality debate
and perhaps eventually Public choice among better known alternatives”.
Policy Analysis and Policy Management
The distinction between Policy Analysis and Policy Management needs to be highlighted,
though in practice these two related processes overlap to some extent. According to Dror, „policy
analysis‟ deals with the substantive examination of policy issues and the identification of
preferable alternatives, in part with the help of systematic approaches and explicit methods.
„Policy management‟ deals with the management of policy-making and policy-preparation
process, to assure that it produces high quality policies. The interdependence of policy analysis
andpolicymanagementcanbeseeninthenecessityof assuring, withthehelpof appropriate
policy management, that adequate policy analysis is undertaken as part of crisis management
systems and reinforcing innovativeness. Policy Analysis covers several methods and concepts,
some of which are quantitative in character, including methods like social experimentation, game
stimulation and contingency planning. Despite such distinctions between policy analysis and policy
management, both are interrelated aspects of policy- making and cover a major part of the tasks
of senior administrators. Therefore, it is essential that these two processes should be treated jointly.
Policy Inputs, Policy Outputs and Policy Outcomes
Policy inputs are the demands made on the Political systems by individuals and groups for action
or inaction about some perceived problems. Such demands may include a general inconsistence
that government should do something to aproposal for specific action on thematter.
In the Political system Model, outputsare regarded either as effects on the environment or
as „feedback‟ to the Political Supporters of the system. Easton says that outputs are said to
constitutea bodyor specific inducements forthe members of apolitical system tosupport it, either
by threats of sanctions, rewards for support given, or by socialization into the political norms of
the society.
7 8

5. In other words, Policy outputs are the actual decisions of the implementers. They are what
a Government does, as distinguished from what it says it is going to do. Examples of Policy
Outputs relate to such matters as the education institutions built, taxes collected, compensation
paidor curbs on thetrade eliminated.Outcomes are real resultswhether intendedor unintended.
Policy outputs are, however, different from policy outcomes. The concept of outcomes lays
stress on what actually happens to the target groups intended to be affected by the policy, If the
intendedchanges ontargetgroupsdo notoccur,somethingiswrong.Labourwelfarepoliciesmay
be used to illustrate this point. Although one can measure welfare policy outputs- the amount
collected by way of taxation, the number of persons helped, the amount of benefits paid and the
like- it is difficult to measure the consequences of these actions. Here our intention is to evaluate
thepolicies.Inotherwords,itmeansassessingwhetherthepoliciesactuallyachievewhattheyare
intended to achieve
SCOPE OF PUBLIC POLICY
Asignificant part of thestudyof publicpolicyconsistsofthedevelopment ofscenarios(Postulated
sequence of future events) and extrapolations (calculate approximately from the known data) of
contemporary trends. The scope and the sheer (neither too much or too low) size of the Public
sector has grown enormously in all the developing countries in response to the increasing
complexity of technology, social organization, industrialization and urbanization. At present the
functions of practically all governments, especially of the developing countries have significantly
increased. They are now concerned with the more complex functions of Nation- Building and
Socio-EconomicProgress.Todaythegovernmentisnotmerelythekeeperofpeace,thearbiterof
disputes, the provider of common goods and day-to- day services. It has directly or indirectly,
become the principal innovator, the major determiner of social and economic programmes and
the main financier as well as the main guarantor of large-scale enterprises.
In many developing countries, there is great pressure on governments to accelerate national
development, make use of up-to-dateand relevant technological innovations, adopt and facilitate
necessary institutional changes, increase national production, make full use of human and other
resources and improve the level of living. These trends and developments have therefore
enhancedboththeSize andScopeof PublicPolicy.MichaelTeitzdescribestheoutreachofpublic
policy in terms of the citizen‟s lifecycle:-
“A modern urban man is born in a publicly financed hospital, receives his education in publicly
supported school or university, spends a good part of his time travelling on publicly built
transportation facilities, communicates through the post office or the quasi- public telephone
system, drinks his public drinking water, disposes of his garbage through the public removal system,
read his library books, picnic in his public parks, is protected by public police ,fire and health
systems, eventually, he dies again in a hospital and may be buried in a public cemetery.
Ideological conservatives notwithstanding his everyday life are inextricably bound up with
government decisions on these and numerous other public services.”
The line of argument developed here is that all of us are greatly affected by the myriad
(countless) Public Policies in oureveryday lives.The range of public policy is vast: fromvital to the
trivial. Today Public Policies may deal with such substantive areas as defense, environment
protection, medical care, health, education, housing, taxation, inflation, science and technology,
and so on.
POLICY TYPES
Some social scientists and scholars have attempted to discuss the typologies of Policy issues. These
facilitate the comparison between issues and Policies. Lowi, for example, suggests a Classification
of Policy Issues in terms of being:
 Distributive Policy Issues: Policy issues which are concerned with the distribution of new
resources.
 RedistributivePolicy Issues:arethosewhichareconcernedwithchangingthedistributionof
existing resources.
 Regulative Policy Issues: are those which are concerned with regulation and control of
activities.
 Constituent Policy Issues: are those which are concerned with the setting –up (or)
reorganization of institutions.
Each of these Policy issues forms a different power arena. However it may be mentioned
here that LOWI‟s view of Politics as a function of policies has been criticized as over-
simplistic, methodologically suspect, and testability. Cobbe and Elder, for instance, observe
that Lowi‟s typology has basic limitations. It does not provide a framework for
understanding change as the types become less clear and more diffuse.
 Conflict Policy Issues: Cobbe and Elder propose an alternative classification of Policy
issues in terms of conflict rather than content. Their focus is on the way in which Conflict is
createdandmanaged.Tothem aConflictmayarisebetweentwoormoregroupsover
issues relating to the distribution of positions (or) resources. These may created by such
means and devices as:
a) manufacture by a contending party who perceive unfairness (or) bias in the
distribution of positions (or) resources
b) manufacture of an issue for Personal or Group gain; and
c) unanticipated human events, natural disasters, international conflict, war and
technological changes.
Such issues then constitute the agenda for Policy- making are known as Conflict Policy
issues.
 Bargaining Policy Issues: Hogwood and Wilson use the criteria of costs and benefits from
the point of view of the possibilities of different outcomes, forms of bargaining and conflict
and a range of alternatives. There are redistribution or cuts issues which involve
bargaining over who get what, who gets more, and who gets less. For Wilson, criteria of
costs and benefits may be concentrated (or) dispersed. An Issue, which may have very
10

6. concentratedbenefitstoasmallsectionofsocietybutwhosecostsarewidelydispersed,is
of a different kind to one that may be for, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”.
SIGNIFICANCE AND WHY STUDY PUBLIC POLICY
Most governments of third World countries are engaged in the momentous task kindling
national resurgence through Socio- Economic development. They are struggling hard to develop
their economy, to sustain improvements in the social system and to increase the capacity of their
political system with a view to achieving the major objective or national development. They seek
to improve relevant policies. It is therefore, taken for granted that the study of approaches,
strategies and concepts which will contribute towards this end are essential. The study of Public
Policy represents a powerful approach for this purpose. Public Policy is an important mechanism
formovingasocialsystem from thepasttothefuture.Ithelpstoshapethefuture. AlvinToffler
exposed the problem of adjustment to rapid change in his Popular sociological book, “Future
Shock”. The future requires Policies and Choices. What is trivial today may be of colossal (huge)
importance in a future decade later. We can understand the future by extrapolation of the
presenttrends.Wemaytaketheideaofprojectingsomekeysocialtrends intothefuture.
Public Policyis conditionedby thepast.Howthepresentdimensions ofPublicPolicyinthe
developing countries emerged, how they now appear, how the present sustains them are
importantquestions inthestudyofpublicpolicy.Inthesecountries,thescopeandthesheersizeof
the public sector has grown enormously in response to the increasing complexity of technology,
social organization, industrialization, urbanization and environmental protection. The Growth of
publicfunctions has paralleled thegrowth ofpublic policies.The studyofthepast isveryimportant
as it helps in explaining the present policy system. The past policies perpetuate themselves into
present and future policies.
The study of Public Policy is of vital importance for the present. It deals with the definition
of a policy problem. The definition of a problem may generate more conflict than consensus. In
Policy making Political power tends to impose upon the definitions of the problem. The present
policy making can be thought of as problem- solving behavior, realizing that the definition of
alternatives is the supreme instrument ofpower.
The earliest writings of Political Scientists reveal an interest in the policies pursued by
variousgovernments andtheirimpacts onsociety.Yetthefocusofattentionhasneverreallybeen
on the policies themselves but rather on the political processes and institutions of government. This
is not to say, however, that traditional political science was unconcerned with policy.
Constitutional policy, Foreign Policy and Policies relating to civil rights were also the subjects of
attention.The focus of attention was primarily on the institutions andthe structures of government
inwhich public policy wasformulated.Thestudies,however, did notexplorethelinkagesbetween
important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy. Currently, the focus of
Political Science is shifting to Public Policy- to the description, analysis and explanation of the
causes and consequences of governmentactivity.
WHY STUDY PUBLIC POLICY?
Earlier, most people assumed that once the legislature passed a Law and appropriated
money for it, the purposes of the law would be achieved. They believed that governments could
achieve such goals as the elimination of poverty and the prevention of crime through the adoption
of right policies. But now there is a growing uneasiness among social scientists about the
effectiveness of the governments. The results have been the sudden awakening of interest in the
study of public policy. Policy in the main may be studied for two reasons:
◉ For developing policy science study
◉ For Political and administrativereasons
ForDevelopingPolicyScienceStudy
First of all, public policy can be studied with a view to gaining greater knowledge and
understanding of the causes and consequences of policy decisions. An understanding of the
linkages between the environment and public policy contributes to the development of policy
science.Notonlythis,anunderstandingofthecausesandconsequences ofpublicpolicyhelpsus
toapply scientific knowledgeto the solution of practical social problems. Theprofessionals, ifthey
understand and know something about public policy, are in a position to say something useful
concerning how governments or public authorities can act to achieve their policy goals. Such
advice can either be on what policies can be pursued for achieving particular goals or what
environmental factors are conducive to the development of a given policy. Indeed factual
knowledge is a prerequisite to solving the problems of society. In other words, the study of public
policyhelpsthedevelopmentofprofessionaladviceabouthowtoachieveparticulargoals.
For Political and Administrative Reasons
Public policy can also be studied for political and administrative reasons in order to ensure
that governments select and adopt appropriate policies. The study of Public policy has much to
offer to the development of administration in different sectors of the economy. It will enable the
administration to engage in such issues as are of public importance and are concerned with the
transformation of values into public policy-making and demanding the meaningful actions of
public servants. The social scientists, especially political scientists, manifest concern with what
governments should do with appropriate public policy. They contend that political science cannot
be „silent‟ or „impotent‟ on current social and political problems and that political scientists and
academics in Public Administration have a moral obligation to put forward a particular policy on
a particular problem. They should advance the level of political knowledge and improve the
quality of public policy in whatever ways they think best, notwithstanding the fact that substantial
disagreement exists in society over what constitutes approximate policies.
COMPONENTS OF A PUBLIC POLICY
Definition of Components of Public Policy
Austin Ranney explains the various components of Public Policy in the following manner:
* A Particular object or Set of objects-- Some designated part of the environment (an aspect
of society or the physical world) which is intended to be affected.
11 12

7. * A Desired Course of events– A popular sequence of behaviour desired in a particular
object or set of objects.
* A Selected line of action– A particular set of actions chosen to bring about the desired
course of events,
* in other words, not merely whatever society happens to be doing towards the set of
objectives at the moment, but a deliberate selection of one line of action from among
several possible options.
* An implementation of Intent-- the actions actually undertaken vis-à-vis the particular set of
objects in pursuance of the choices and declaration.
Policies may be explicit, but theymay remain implicit also. A policy may be made explicit in a
piece of formally enacted legislation but it may also be inferred from the broad pattern of
administrative action and behaviour. A policy in other words, is distilled from the administrative
practices also; administrative practice is the true test of a policy.
AUTONOMY IN POLICY MAKING
Public Policy making assumes that the policy makers enjoy complete independence from
external control and are autonomous in regard to policy making. The unfortunate fact is that
though the Third World Countries have gained political independence, many of them may not
really be independent in the matter of policy- making. Many new states are in practice
dependent states, mainly because of the nature of their elite. Most of the developing countries
have narrow-based elite which has hogged (Controlled) social, economic and political power and
is confined to a few urban centers which, in turn, are hitched to a colonial system dominated by
metropolitan “super centers” lying outside these countries. The local Elite is engaged in a
plantation- Type Economy and in the manipulation of the civil –military cliques (small exclusive
group of people) in domestic politics. This monopoly and the narrow social base of such an elite,
which effectively restricts independent policy making, must be broken.
The current dependent status can be escaped by firm adoption of two meta- policies;
these are the Policies behind Policies:
i. Import substitution leading to economic sufficiency and transforming the colonial
economy to an independent industrial system, and
ii. A nation‟s armament and defensepolicy.
iii. Thus, Policies underlying import substitution and national defense are the essential
concomitants (occurring together) of political independence.
Other constraints are also encountered by national policy makers. One such is the factor
of „sunk cost‟. The former commitments effectively limit policy alternatives and thus choices.
Governmental fragmentation, too, denies the policy makers the ability to attack problems
comprehensively. For instance, The Ministry of Health in Ethiopiadiscourages cigarette smoking,
butother agencies encourage tobacco- cultivation. Theconflictingdevelopmental policies tendto
neutralize the impact of the national policy on smoking.
Another Powerful constraint is the empirical reality as pointed out by Herbert Simon,
namely the existence of the administrative (or „Satisfying‟) man in Public Administration. The
„Administrative man‟ works out a few alternatives of a problem and then a few consequences of
each of these alternatives of a problem, before making a choice. The existence of the
administrative man is also a constraint on public policy making. No policy maker can flout (ignore)
the public opinion. Finally, the state of economic and infra-structural development in the country
also acts as aconstraint against the adoption of certain categories of Policy. If a state suffers
from paucity of power supply, its policy regarding industrialization cannot succeed.
One must never forget the policy making itself involves dealing with conflicting demands.
There is also the all-too well-known conflict between the economists and the ecologists. While
economists insist on rapid industrialization in the country, the environmentalists plead for
conservation of natural resources an thus stand for eco- friendly development.
One may see from the above that public policy making is a complex process, involving a
wide range of institutions, interests and mechanisms. As Peter Woll, says, “The Policy making
process is a complex mechanism involving all levels of government, and a wide range of political
institutions that shape the demands and supports of government.
At the earliest stages of the evolution of public policy analysis, the concern was to study
processes by which public policies are made. The contents of public policies received little
attention. Gradually the study of „contents‟ of public policies began to claim more and more
attention, and is today the dominant feature of policy studies in the developing countries.
Substantive issues are as a result more hotly pursued by public administrators and political
scientists. Substantive issues are what Herbert Simon calls „prescribing for Public Policy. Nearly all
thespecialissueslikeenvironmentdevelopment,childwelfare, populationandeducation.Alltold,
the sub-field of public policy has rapidly emerged as a glamorous one.
14

8. INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER- II
POLICY ANALYSIS
2. A rigorous search for the causes and consequences of Public Policies. This search involves
the use of scientific standards of inference. Sophisticated quantitative techniques may be
helpful in establishing valid inferences about causes and consequences, but they are not
really essential.
Thestudyof publicpolicypreparesandhelps ustocopebetterwiththefuture.Itimprovesour
knowledge about thesociety. Animportant part of thestudyof public policyis concerned with
society‟sfuture.AsGibsonWinterhasobserved;“Theproblemofpolicyisultimatelyhowthefuture
is grasped and appraised. The essential meaning of responsibility is accountability in human
fulfillmentinshapingofthesociety‟s future”.Inspite oftheimportanceofthepublicpolicy,thinking
about the future is quite primitive, both among social scientists and policy makers in developing
countries.Howevertherehasbeenconsiderablegrowthinresearchandtraininginpolicyanalysis
since the early 1970s in many developed countries. In most developed countries, Policy Analysis
has been substantially stimulated by the government‟s increased concern for public policy
problems.Theattractivenessofthegovernmentasaresearchsponsorhasalsobeenenhanced.
MEANING AND ISSUES OF POLICYANALYSIS
Questions of policy ultimately rest on the application of acknowledge to political decisions. Such
knowledge is generated both within andoutside the government agencies and other public affairs
institutions. An understanding of the causes and consequences of policy decisions permits us to
apply the knowledge of social science to the solution of practical problems. The acquisition and
dissemination of information about public policies have become a major theme in social sciences,
especially in the discipline of public administration. The use of such knowledge for making,
managing and evaluating public policy is generally termed as policy analysis.
Policy Analysis is a technique to measure organizational effectiveness throughthe
examinationandevaluation oftheeffectofaprogramme.Publicpolicyanalysis thusnothingmore
than estimating the impact of public policy on the government programmes.
The Dictionary of Public Administration defines policy analysis as “a systematic and data-
basedalternativetointuitivejudgementsabouttheeffectsofpolicyorpolicyoptions.Itisused
a) for problem assessment andmonitoring,
b) as a „before the fact‟ decision tool, and
c) for evaluation”.
Policy analysis encourages social scientists and policy-makers to examine policy issues and
decisions with scientific tools. Thomas Dye Labels Policy analysis as the “the thinking man‟s
response”todemands.Heobservesthatspecificallypublic analysisinvolves:
1. A primary concern with explanation rather than prescription. Policy recommendations- if
they are made at all- are subordinate to description and explanation. There is an implicit
judgement that understanding is a prerequisiteto prescription, andthat understanding is a
prerequisite to prescription, and that understanding is best achieved through careful
analysis rather than rhetoric or polemics
3. Aneffort todevelop and testgeneralpropositionsaboutthe causesand consequencesof
publicpolicyandtoaccumulatereliableresearch findings ofgeneral relevance.Theobject
is to develop general theories about public policy that are reliable and that apply to
different governmental agencies and different policy areas. Policy analysts clearly prefer
to develop explanations that fit more than one policy decision or case study- explanations
that stand up over time in a variety of settings.”
PolicyAnalysisasatechniqueputsdatatousein,ordecidingabout,estimatingandmeasuringthe
consequences of public policies. Its Purpose is twofold. It provides maximum information with
minimal cost about
i. the likely consequences of proposed policies, &
ii. the actual consequences of the policies already adopted.
To achieve these two purposes, various methods or approaches are applied. Among the
principal methodologies are:
a) Systems Analysis and Simulation;
b) Cost- Benefit Analysis;
c) New Approaches to Budgeting;
d) Policy Experimentation; and
e) Policy Evaluation
Policy Analysis is thus an interdisciplinary drawing upon data from other disciplines.
It is essentially impact research.
A number of trends have occurred in policy analysis research since the early 1970s. Stuart S.
Nagel has identified four key elements to it which have been undergoing a change over the past
20 years. These are:
i. the goals with which policy analysis isconcerned,
ii. the means for achieving thosegoals,
iii. themethodsfordeterminingtheeffects of alternativemeans ongoal-achievement,and
iv. the profession of policy analysis which is applying these methods in relating means to goals.
Goals refer to the societal benefits minus societal costs that one is seeking to achieve through
publicdecisions.Thereisagreatertrendtowardsconsideringgoalsasgivenhypothesesandthen
attempting to determine what policies will maximize or optimize them. The crime reduction field
providesagoodexampleoftheneedforanapproachtothisproblem.Onthemeanselement,
there is a growing need for means that are politically and administratively feasible. The
environment policy provides a good example of this approach. There is also an increasing
concern to draw upon the various social sciences to suggest alternative policies or means. As
regards the methods, they refer to the procedures whereby one can determine the relations
between alternative policies and given goals.
16

9. PublicPolicyMakingandAnalysis(GaDS524) PublicPolicyMakingandAnalysis(GaDS524)
Policy analysis is developing increased precision in its methods, but at the same time, it
recognizesthefactthatsimplemethodsmaybeallthatisnecessaryfornumerouspolicyproblems.
How to provide counsel to the poor in civil cases is a good example to illustrate this point. Finally
on the element of the profession of policy analysis, there is a substantial growth in the policy
analysis training programmes, research centers, funding resources, scholarly associations and
other government institutions. Policy analysis is not a discipline like economics, sociology or political
science. It is thriving as a sub discipline of the various social sciences and as an inter discipline
depending on the existing field of economics, political science, and other social and even natural
sciences. As Eugene Bardach observes: “Unlike most social science research, most policy research
is derivative rather than original. That is, it is produced by creative play with ideas and data
already developed by others.”
Policy Analysts and Concerns
There are varieties of groups and people, academics, independent research institutions,
pressure and interest groups, political parties, free- lance consultants) who are involved in policy
analysis and are concerned with:
i. problems and the relationship of public policies to these problems
ii. the content of public policies;
iii. what the policy- makers do;
iv. the likely future consequences of policy in terms of outputs and outcomes.
Someanalysts, forexamplemaybeinterestedinthe roleof political parties inshapingpolicy,
others in the impact of bureaucracy on decision- making, the role of professionals in policy
delivery. Analysts may focus on different stages of the policy process, such as policy formulation,
implementation, or evaluation.
PUTTING ANALYSIS TO WORK
Policyanalysishascometoberecognizedasanimportanttechniqueinassessingpolicyproblems
as well as policy impacts. It makes use of the required information in examining, deciding about,
and finally, measuring the consequences of public policies.
Since it is concerned with organizational effectiveness, a framework for policy analysis
may be required. Such a policy analysis framework would identify both the kinds of information
used to define policy, and also the analytic processes.
Policy Process
Figure-1
The abovefigure- 1indicatesthe basiclinkages of aframework for thesystematic analysis
of information and its use in a policy- related context. The basis to the framework is a process of
information for policy analysis which is derived from system or programme performance in terms
of the interaction among:
“1. inputs that indicate needs and demands;
2. processes related to the provision of long- term care services;
3. outputs in terms of the use of services and costs of care; and
4. outcomes that identify the end results of certain courses of action”.
Basedontheappraisalofsystemsperformanceusingtheabovelinkages,issuesforvariousgoals
can be identified. Once these issues are identified, information is analyzed in terms of how it
pertains to the larger issues (for example, health, illness and the quality of life.) In this way, issues
related to the needs and demands are defined in terms of health and illness as well as other
coexisting social problems.
For example, in the context of National Heath Policy, the inputs (in term of needs and
demands) comprise health, illness and the quality of life, expressed in physical, psychological,
social,andenvironmental terms.Needs aretheconditions that askforaction.Theyareamongthe
most important predictors of utilization, and are mostly described in such terms of diagnosis,
17 18

10. functional limitation, perceived illness, symptoms, or poor self- rated health status. On the other
hand, demands are needed or not.
Other inputs include resources, such as manpower, facilities and equipments, and
performance standards. On the processes linkage, it is concerned with the delivery of services to
meettheneedsanddemandsofclientsandprofessionals.Servicesaredescribedinsuchtermsas
their kinds, delivery, management and controls of cost and quality. Other services include supports
such as legal aid, income support, consumer education, and professional development. The outputs
of service- related programmes are described in terms of the use of those services, the cost and
the quality of care. Finally the outcomes are the responses to the services expressed in terms of
the levels of well- being and health, and client and professional satisfaction that are attained as a
result.
The foregoing analytical framework facilitates programme evaluation which leads to
rational policies and decisions about healthservices.
STAGES IN POLICY ANALYSIS
The stages in policy analysis can be put as follows:
Identifying the Underlying Problem
Forananalyticalapproach,thefirststepistoidentifywhetherandwhythereisaproblematall.
Defining the problem involves moving from mundane descriptions to a more abstract, conceptual
plane. Here an attempt should be made to diagnose the form of market failure that is confronted.
For example, an environmentalist who is investigating alternative pollution control measures for
theriverwillfindthatthewaterisbeingpollutedbydumpingofindustrialwastesanduntreated
sewage into the river.
Having identified the context of the problem the next step is to determine what objectives
are to be achieved in confronting it. Too often, we lose sight of the rational objectives. Paying
careful attention to the objectives is important. For example, the distribution of doctors is merely a
means to the end of improving people‟shealth.
Determining Alternatives for Policy Choice
The next step is to determine alternative courses of action. Government intervention can take any
form. It is important to determine which kind of intervention is most positive in any particular
situation.
In the case of the pollution of the river, consider the following possibilities:
i. Abutters insomeareas of therivermight begrantedrights bythegovernment toclean
water. They would then have the right to sue a polluter.
ii. The government may require the concerned industrialists and cities and town dwellers to
stop dumping wastes and untreated sewage into the river. It may otherwise impose
restrictions on them on the amount of dumping. In the latter case, the government may
prescribe such specifics as enforcement stringency of standards.
iii. The government may permit polluters to purchase rights to discharge a certain amount of
pollutants. Polluters may be required to pay effluent charges and to install pollution-
control devices.
iv. The regional state governments itself can directly undertakethe work of cleaning and
removing the pollutants that other dump.
These are some of the alternatives forpollution control. As difficulties are identified and additional
information becomes available, reinforcement of alternative courses of action will continue
throughout the analysis. Determining alternatives for policy choice generally offers a chance for
creative thought as well as hard work. Often, the process is treated merely as a mechanical
exercise, and consequently, attractive policies are not paid adequate attention, it rarely proceeds
in a straightforward fashion from the identification of the problem to the selection of the preferred
action.
Forecasting and Evaluating the Alternatives
Having identified the underlying problem and having determined the alternatives for policy
choice, whatarethe consequences ofeach of thealternatives?Forthis, thepolicy analystwill turn
to a relevant model for forecasting consequences. Inthe case of the pollution control problem, the
models needed would be far more complex. Here, the analyst would have to build a model of how
the quality of water in the river responds to the various types of pollution and weather conditions.
Only then can he forecast the consequences, in terms of quality of water and the alternative
measuresanddegreesofpollutioncontrol.Insuchacaseamodelbasedoncomputersimulationis
themost appropriate. The analyst must alsotrytopredict theeffect ontheindividuals and the
industrialists affected by various control measures on water quality. It is necessary here to predict
all the effects of the proposed policies, not just the economic effects desired by the decision-
maker.
If the consequences of an alternative course of action are uncertain, and especially if the possible
outcomes differwidelyfrom oneanother,theanalystmaywishtodevelopadecisiontreeand
evaluate the probability of each outcome. For instance the river pollution case, it is difficult to
predict with complete accuracy either the weather or future developments in pollution control
measures, or the vagaries of the political executive. It is difficult to have a rational policy choice
unlesstherelativemeritsofalternativeoptionsarecompared. Thequestion ofmeasuringsuccess
in the pursuit of ach objectives is a difficult one. However, if the analysis is to recommend a policy
decision,hemustfindsomewaytoevaluatethepossibledegreesofimprovementofwaterquality.
Improvements in water quality will be achieved only at a very high cost, while the benefits of
pollutioncontrol may have to bear a substantial portion of costs in administeringthe pollution
control. These costs therefore must be evaluated. However, the effects of pollution controls will
extendovermanyyearsandtherelativebenefitsandcostsmustbediscounted.Intheviewof
such conflicting objectives, it becomes difficult for an elected or appointed policy- maker to make
these tough policy choices. However, evaluation of the outcomes is of great importance as it
reminds us to look carefully at the cost- benefit analysis of a particular policy choice. Too often,
20

11. policy choices have been sabotaged by bureaucrats and interested politicians. The analysts should
seek the counsel of experts in thefield.
Making a Choice
The last step in policy analysis relates to making the preferred choice (course of action). The
situation may be so simple for the policy- maker that he can simply look at the consequences
predicted for each alternative and select the one that is best. In contrast, it may be so complex
that he will have to think of his preferences among the various possible outcomes, i.e., how the
world will behave in response to the possible choices.
The policy process may be represented in the following diagrammatic form as shown in
Figure 1.
It has been observed that countless policy studies have led nowhere. Sometimes the fault is
attributed to the public decision- makers who do not take advantage of readily accessible data.
Too often, it is the producers of the analysis who are to be blame. Most policy analyses are
gathering dust because they have not been properly understood. The analysis should be brought
out in such a way that the essential points can be easily grasped and communicated. The choice
among competing policy alternatives is complex, for the future is always uncertain. But, by
enhancing our capability to forecast the consequences of the alternative courses of actions, and
providingaframeworkforvaluingthoseconsequences,thetechniquesofpolicyanalysisleadusto
better decisions.
Limitations
Asthefutureisalwaysuncertain,itisquestionablewhetherpolicyanalysiscanfindsolutionstothe
problems regarding the future of society. Poverty, Unemployment, inequality, and the
environmental pollution are some of the major problems in the developing countries. Of course,
this is an excuse for failing to strive for a better society. It must be realized that solutions to these
problems may be difficult to find. There are several reasons for tempering our enthusiasm for
policy analysis.
It has been observed that policy analyses are gathering dust because they are either too
long or too hard to understand. A policy analysis is of no use if it cannot be communicated to
others. Too often, the policy analysis deals with subjective topics and must rely upon the
interpretation of results. Professional researchers often interpret the results of their analyses
differently.Obviously,quitedifferentpolicyrecommendationscancomeoutfromthesealternative
interpretations of the results of research.
Secondly, policy analysis cannot provide solutions to problems when there is no general
consensus on whatthe problems are. It is incapable of resolving societal value conflicts. At best,it
can offer advice on how to accomplish a certain set of end values. It cannot determine what those
end values should be. Furthermore, social science researchcannot bevalue- free.
It is also very difficult for the government to cure all or even most of the maladies of
society.Thegovernmentisconstrainedbymanyforces,bothfromwithinandoutside-suchforces,
as population growth, patterns of family life, class structure, religious beliefs, diversity of cultures
and languages, financial resources and so on, cannot be easily managed by the government.
Some social ills are very complex.
Then also there are the inherent limitations in the design of policy analysis research. For
example, it becomes difficult to conduct some forms of controlled experiments on human beings.
Further, it has been noted that the persons doing policy research are too often programme
administrators who might be interested in providing the positive results of their programmes. It is
desirable to separate research from policy implementation, but this seems to be a difficult thing to
do.
Another limitation of policy analysis is the fact that society‟s ills are so complex that
analysts are incapable of predicting the impact of proposed policies. Social scientists largely fail
to give proper advice to the policy- makers owing to lack of knowledge about individual and
group behaviour. The fact that social scientists offer many contradictory recommendations
indicates the absence of reliable scientific knowledge of social problems. Most of society‟s ills are
shaped by so many forces that a simple explanation of them is hardly possible.
Despitetheselimitationsonpolicyanalysis,itseemssafetosaythatsocialscientistscanat
least attempt to measure the impact of present and past public policies and make this knowledge
available to policy- makers. Reason, knowledge and scientific analysis are always better than the
absence of any knowledge. Robert Lineberry notes that “Policy analysis rest on the assumption
thatinformationisbetterthannoquestionsasked,evenwhenthe answersmaynot bedefinitive.”
Policy analysis may not provide solutions to society‟s ills but it is still an appropriate tool in
approaching policy questions. Policy analysis enables us to describe and explain the causes and
consequences of public policy. Policy analysis is applied to inform the policy- maker about the
likely future consequences of choosing various alternatives.
21 22

12. CHAPTER- III
MODELS FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
A model is a simplified representation of some aspect of the real world. It may be
an actual physical representation- a model airplane, for example, or the tabletop buildings
that urban planners use to show how things will look when proposed projects are
completed.Oramodelmaybeadiagram-aroadmap,forexample,oraflowchartthat
political scientistsuse to show how abill becomes law. Themodels usedin studyingpublic
policy are conceptual models.
Models serve many purposes. They simplify and clarify one‟s thinking about public
policy and politics. They identify important aspects of policy problems. They help one to
communicate with others by focusing on the essential features of political life. They direct
one‟s efforts toabetterunderstandingof public policybysuggestingwhat is important
andwhatisnot.Theysuggestexplanations forPublicpolicyandpredictitsconsequences.
There are Various Models to help understand public policy.
The Major Ones are:
1. Institutional model
2. Process Model
3. Group Model
4. Elite Model
5. Rational Model
6. Incremental Model
7. Game Theory Model
8. System Model
9. Optional Model
10. Market exchangeModel
THE ELITE THEORY OR MODEL:
The classic enunciation (articulation) of the elite theory is to be found in Gaetano Mosca‟s
The Ruling Class. Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political
organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most causal eye. In all societies- from
societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawning‟s of civilization,
supplies the first in appearance, at least, with material means of subsistence and with the
instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism, down to the most
advanced and powerful societies- two classes of people appeared a class that rules and a class
that is ruled. The first class (ruling), always the less numerous, performs all political functions,
monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, Whereas the second,(ruled), the
more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less
legal, Nowmore orless arbitrary (based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather
than on objective facts, reasons, or principles) and violent, and supplies the first in appearance, at
least, with material means of subsistence and with the instrumentalities that are essential to the
vitality of the political organism.
Elite
Political Direction
Officials and
Administrator
Policy Execution
M A S S
The elite mass group model
Theelitetheory ofpolicy-makingismostcloselyrelatedtopublicservants.Theyareperceived
by this theory as a ruling elite rather than public servants. This theory contends that most
peopleareapathetic anddonot possess therequisiteinformationtoequipthem forpolicy
making. They are thus passive, and the small ruling elite makes the policies which reflect the
rulers‟ values. The emphasis of the policies is on status . C.Wright Mills‟ The power elite
provides the classic enunciation of the elite theory.
EliteTheorycanbesummarizedbrieflyasfollows:
Society is divided into few who have power and the many who do not. Only a small
numberofpersons allocatevaluesforsociety;themasses donotdecidepublicpolicy.Thefew
who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed. Elites are drawn
disproportionately from the upper socio-economic strata of society. The movement of Non-
Elites to Elite positions must be slow and continuous to maintain stability and avoid revolution.
Only non-elites who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing
circles. Elites share consensus on behalf of the basic values of the social system and the
preservation of the system.
PublicPolicydoesnotreflectthedemandsofthemassesbutrathertheprevailingvaluesof
the elite. Changes in Public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary. Active Elites
are subject to relatively little direct influence from apathetic masses. Elites influence masses
more than masses influence elites.
23 24

13. SYSTEMS MODEL FOR POLICY ANALYSIS:
The Policy making process has been regarded as a black box which converts the demands of the
society into policies. David Easton in his Analysis of Political Systems argued that the political system was
that part of the society engaged in the “authoritative allocation of values”. The systems approach to
political analysis can be shown in the above figure. This sketch gives a rough idea of what political
scientists have in mind when describing a political system.
Demands are the claims made on the political system by individuals and groups to alter some
aspects of the environment. Demands occur when individuals or groups, in response to environmental
conditions, act to affect public policy.
The environment is any condition or event defined as external to the boundaries of the political
system.ThesupportsofaPoliticalsystemconsistoftherules,lawsandcustomswhichprovideabasisfor
the existence of a political community and the authorities. The support is rendered when individuals or
groups accept the decisions or laws.
Supportsarethe symbolicormaterial inputsofasystem (suchasobeying laws,payingtaxes,oreven
respecting the national flag) that constitute the Psychological and material resources of the system.
At the heart of the political system are the institutions and personnel for the policy- making. These
include the chief executive, legislators, judges and bureaucrats. In the system version they translate inputs
into outputs. Outputs then are the authoritative value allocations of the political system, and these
allocationsconstitutepublicpolicyorpolicies.Thesystemstheoryportrayspublicpolicyasanoutputofthe
political system.
The concept of feedback indicates that public policies may have a modifying effect on the
environment and the demands generated therein, and may also have an effect upon the character of the
political system. Policy outputs may generate new demands and new supports, or withdrawal of the old
supports for the system. Feedback plays an important role in generating suitable environment for the
future policy. The system preserves itself by
i. producing reasonably satisfying outputs;
ii. relying on deeply rooted attachments to the system itself;
AdaptedfromEaston’s-AframeworkforPolicyAnalysis(1965)
The Eastonian Black Box Model
Notes:
The Intra –Societal Environment
– The Ecological system
– Biological system
– Personality system
– Social System
The Extra- Societal Environment
– International political systems
– International ecological systems
– International social systems
iii. using, or threatening to use, force.
LIMITS OF SYSTEMS APPROACH TO POLICY ANALYSIS
Thesystemstheoryisausefulaidinunderstandingthepolicy-makingprocess.ThomasDyesaysthat
the value of the systems model to policy analysis lies in the questions that it poses:
“ 1. What are the significant dimensions of the environment that generate demands upon the political
system?
2. What are the significant characteristics of the political system that enable it to transform demands
into public policy and to preserve itself over time?
3. How do environmental inputs affect the character of the political system?
4. How do characteristics of the political system affect the content of the public policy?
5. How do environmental inputs affect the content of public policy?
6. How does public policy affect,through feedback,the environment and thecharacter ofthe political
system?
Theusefulness ofthe systemsmodel for thestudyof public policy ishowever, limitedowing to several
factors. It has been argued that this input- output model appears to be too simplistic to serve as a useful
aid to understanding the policy- making process. This model is accused of employing the value- laden
25

14. techniques ofwelfareeconomicswhichare basedonthemaximizationofaclearlydefined„socialwelfare
function‟.
Another shortcoming of the traditional input- output model is that it ignores the fragmentary nature of
the „black box‟. The missing ingredients in the systems approach are the “power, personnel, and
institutions” of policy making. Lineberry observes that in examining these “we will not forget that political
decision-makers arestronglyconstrainedbyeconomicfactorsintheenvironmentinthepoliticalsystem.
ThisEastonianmodelalsoignoresan importantelementofthepolicyprocess,namely,thatthepolicy-
makers (including institutions) have also a considerable potential in influencing the environment within
which they operate. The traditional input- output model would see the decision- making system as
“facilitative” and value-free rather than “causative”, i.e., as a completely neutral structure. In other words,
structurevariationsinthesystems arefoundtobehavingnodirectcausaleffectonpublicpolicy.
In the western democracies, the bureaucracy‟s role in the shaping of policy direction is largely
technical and fairly minimal. The policy direction remains still largely in the traditional domain of the
political elite. The other hand, in the developing countries where the state‟s objectives are not fully
articulated and clear, the bureaucracy easily capitalizes on the process of policy selection out of
alternative policy strategies. It does participate in the formulation of public policy in addition to
performing purely technical tasks.
Finally, the extent to whichthe environment, both internal and external, is saidto have an influence on
the policy- making process is influenced by the values and ideologies held by the decision- makers in the
system. It suggests that the policy making involves not only the policy content but also the policy- maker‟s
perceptionsandvalues.Thevaluesheldbythepolicy-makers arefundamentally assumedtobecrucialin
understanding the policy alternatives that aremade.
INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO POLICYANALYSIS
In a democratic society, a state is a web of government structures and institutions. The state
performs many functions. It strives to adjudicate between conflicting social and economic interests. The
positive state is regarded as the guardian of all sections of the community. It does not defend the
predominance of any particular class or community. It tries to protect all economic interests by
accommodating and reconciling them. No organisation has ever been able to succeed in its objectives
across the whole range of public policies; and policy issues tend to be resolved in ways generally
compatible with the preferences of the majority of the public.
In the pluralist society, the activities of individuals and groups are generally directed toward
governmental institutions such as legislature, executive, judiciary, bureaucracy, etc. Public policy is
formulated, implemented and enforced by governmental institutions. In other words, a policy does not
take the shape of a public policy unless it is adapted and implemented by the governmental institutions.
Government institutions give public policy three different characteristics.
Firstly, the government gives legal authority to policies. Public policy is the outcome of certain
decisionsandischaracterizedbytheuseoflegal sanctions.Itisregarded asalegal obligationwhich
commands the obedience of the people.
Secondly, theapplicationof public policyis universal.Only public policies extend to all citizensin
the state.
27
Thirdly, public policies involve coercion. It is applied to the acts of government in backing up its
decisions. A policy conveys the idea of a capacity for imposing penalties, through coercion of a kind
usually reserved to the government itself. Only the government can legally impose sanctions on violators
of itspolicies.Sincethegovernmenthas theabilitytocommand theobedienceofits entirepeople, to
formulate policies governing the whole country and to monopolize the coercion, the individuals and
groups generally work for the enactment of their preferences into policies.
As such, there is a close relationship between public policy and governmental institutions. It is not
surprising, then that political scientists would focus on the study of governmental structures and institutions.
The institutional study has become a central focus of public policy. Thus one of the models of the policy-
making system might be called the institutional theory because it depends on the interactions of those
institutions created by the constitution, government or legislature.
In Policy- making, power is exercised by different individuals and groups, such as the Prime
Minister, Members of Parliament, bureaucrats, leaders of interested groups. Each exercise of power
constitutes one of the influences which, in totality go to make up the policy- making process. This is to say
that there is a process through which public policy is enacted. The process generally comprises a
sequenceofrelateddecisionsmadeunderthepowerfulindividuals andgroups,whichtogetherform what
is known as state institutions. The institutional approach is concerned with explaining how social groups
and governmental institutions bring influence to bear on those entitled to take and implement legally-
binding decisions. Such decision- makers include those who office within the formal and constitutional
system of rules and regulations which give formal authority and power to the various positions within the
governmental structures and institutions. The institutional approach attempts to study the relationship
between public policy and governmentalinstitutions.
Institutionalism, with its focus on the legal and structural aspects of institutions, can be applied in
policy analysis. The structures and institutions and their arrangements and interactions can have a
significant impact on public policy. Governmental institutions are structured patterns of behaviour of
individuals and groups which persist over a period of time.
In the past, the government structures and institutions have been a central focus of political
science. Traditionally, the focus of study was the description of governmental structures and institutions.
The approach did not devote adequate attention to the linkages between government structures and the
content of public policy. The focus of the institutional approach was withoutany systematic enquiry about
the impact of these institutional characteristics on public policy decisions. The study of linkage between
government structures andpolicy outcomes remained largely unanalyzed and neglected.
Despite its narrow focus, the structural approach is not outdated. Government institutions are, in
fact, a set of patterns of behaviour of individuals and groups. These affect both the decision- making and
the content of public policy.
The institutional approach suggests that government institutions may be structured in such ways as
to facilitate certain policy outcomes. These patterns may give an advantage to certain interests in society
and withhold this advantage from other interests. Rules and institutional arrangements are usually not
neutral in their impact. In fact they tend to favour some interests in society over others. Certain individual
groups may enjoy, therefore, greater power or access to government power under one set of structured
28

15. patterns than under another set. Inother words, there is the impact of institutional characteristics on
policy outcomes. Under the institutional one can study the relationships between the institutional
arrangementsandthecontentof publicpolicy.Thepolicyissuescanbeexaminedina systematicfashion
and involve a focus on institutionalarrangements.
The value of the institutional approach to policy analysis lies in askingwhat relationships exit
between institutional arrangements and the content of public policy, and also in investigating these
relationships in a comparative fashion. It would not be good to assume that a particular change in
institutional structure would bring about changes in public policy. Without investigating the true
relationship between structure and policy, it is difficult to assess the impact of institutional arrangements
on public policies. Thomas Dye says that “ both structure and policy are largely determined by
environmental forces, and that tinkering with institutional arrangements will have little independent
impact on public policy if underlying environmental forces- social, economic, and political- remain
constant”.
LINDBLOM’S INCREMENTAL MODEL OR INCREMENTALISM
The word „increment‟ means „a small increase in quantity‟, to add a small amount to‟, to often
at regular intervals. The fundamental concept of incrementalism is contained in „organizational drift‟,
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Policy Increments
„satisficing‟,Theincrementalisttheorycontendsthatonlylimitedpolicyalternativesareprovidedtopolicy-
makers andeach of these alternatives represent only avery small change in thestatus quo.
The incrementalist theory plus the bureaucracy in a conservative mould ever tied to the past
and slow to change. Incremental theory is conservative. It does not question the validity of past
policies which were formulated in a piecemeal way under parochial considerations. It is historical and
atheoretical also. The incrementalist theory assumes- wrongly- that the present limits of knowledge
and prediction would ever continue. But it is politically expedient (appropriate). As it is difficult to have
agreeduponsocietal policies,thereiseasyagreementonincrementalist theory: existingpoliciesthusget
continued.
Incrementalism views public policy as a continuation of past activities with only incremental
modifications. Incrementalism has been increasingly used in public administration since the sixties when
Charles E. Lindblom popularized it in 1959 in his paper „The science of Muddling through‟ published in
Public Administration Review (Vol.19, spring 1959). What incrementalism means is the gradual and
modest increase in specific governmental allocations, that is, budget.
Since the seventies, a reverse trend in public administration in most countries is in evidence
which goes by the name of „cutback management‟. This has induced some like George H. Fredrickson to
cointheantonym„decementalism‟.Decrementalismsignifiesgraduallydecreasingfinancialallocations
According to Lindblom‟s theory, public administration is not governed by principles nor is
administration separated from politics in a unified administrative system.Nor does Lindblom think that an
administrator is the optional rationalizer of efficiency and and effectiveness.
The truth is that public administration is the art of the possible in the modern pluralistic world
of competitive interest groups. An administrator muddles, not manages. Negotiation and strategy are his
operational tools as he aims to devise an „agreeable‟ compromise. This confused manner of incremental
decision making produces social harmony, unity, stability and equilibrium in a fluid environment of ever-
changing interest –groups.
The incremental model has its advantages, but its limitations are no less obvious. First and
foremost, this approach, is inherently conservative, even status quoits. It makes it very difficult for the
government to direct the society it wants, for example, for its penetrative strategy is diffused, multi-
dimensional and mutually contradictory. Incrementalism tends to be reinforcing: every interest group
builds up support in the corresponding governmental department, which lobbies for the farmers‟s
continuance. This leads to involvement of more and more agencies, rendering difficult the problems of
coordination.Secondly, as incrementalism believes in adoption of small steps inchanging apolicy, itmay
end up in unintended and unforeseen consequences. American scholars cite the case of the American
Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 as the culmination of incremental approach. This approach is
notoriously weakin organizational memory theoriginalmotivatingconsiderations getoverlooked.Thirdly
where the challenge is to re-direct and re-construct the entire society, the incremental model of decision-
making is not to the preferred and adopted.
THE RATIONALIST THEORY OF POLICY- MAKING
29 30
Past Policy
Commitments

16. Rationality and rationalism are words too often found and used in the literature of social
science, but they are more widely espoused than practiced in policy- making. However, rationality is
considered to be the „yardstick of wisdom‟ in policy-making.
The rationality precept emphasizes that policy-making is making a choice among policy alternatives on
rational grounds. Rational policy making is “to choose the one best option”. Robert Haveman observes
that a rational policy is one which is designed to maximize “net value achievement”.
Thomas Dye equates rationality with efficiency. “ A policy is rational when it is most efficient, that is, if the
ratio between the values it achieves and the values it sacrifices is positive and higher than any other
policy alternative”. He further says the idea of efficiency involves the calculation of all social, political, and
economic values sacrificedor achievedby apublic policy,justnotthosethatcan bemeasured indollars.
In a sense, the rationalist theory is the opposite of the incrementalist theory. The rationalist
theory seeks to find out allthe value preferences extant in a society, assign each value a weightage, find
out allthe alternatives as well as theconsequences of eachalternative andin theendmakethefinal
2. Search behaviour for alternatives stands foreclosed by past policies and decisions. This is „Sunk Cost‟.
3. Information collection itself faces limits. Not only is there the problem of cost, the time involved in
collecting information sets a limit aswell.
4. The segmental nature of policy- making in government organizations stands in the way of coordination of
decision- making. Asa result, contradictorypoliciesare seen to be in operation in the government.
5. The techniques of cost- benefit analysis cannot apply where diverse political, social, economic and
cultural values are at stake.
6. Even otherwise, it is very difficult to assess accurately the benefits and costs of each policy alternative.
Simplybecause thepredictiveabilityofthesocialandbehaviouralsciencesaswellasofthephysicaland
biological sciences is not all thatadvanced.
Establishment of
complete set of
operational goals with
selection in terms of the costs and benefits of social values. The rationalist model is reflected in
Operations Research, Programme Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), Critical Path Method (CPM)
and Zero- based- budget.
Arational policy isone whichmaximizessocialgain.This isanother way ofsayingthat nopolicyshould be
adopted if its costs exceed its benefits.
Secondly,thepolicymakershouldchoosethatpolicythatproducesthegreatestbenefits.Apublicpolicyis
rationalwhenthedifferenceinitsbenefitsanddisadvantagesisgreaterthanthatinanyotherpolicy.
A rational policy would thus involve:
1. Knowing all value preferences ofsociety
2. Knowing all the policy alternativesavailable
3. Knowing all the consequences of each policy alternative
4. Evaluating the ratio of benefits to costs for each policy alternative
5. Select the most efficient policy alternative, that is, the one that brings the greatest benefits and the
least advantages.
weights
Establishment of
complete inventory of
other values and of
resources with
Preparation of
complete set of
alternative policies
Preparation of
complete set of
predictions of
benefits and
costs for each
alternative
O U T P U T
Pure-Rationality policy (policies)
Calculation of the
net expectation for
each alternative
Comparison of net
expectation and
identification of
alternative(s) with
highest net expectation
A rational model was described by Lindblom as:
1. Faced with a given problem
2. A rational man first clarifies his goals, values, or objectives and then ranks or otherwise organizes
them in his mind;
3. He then lists all important possible ways of policies for achieving his goals;
4. And investigates all the important consequences that would follow from each of the alternative
policies;
5. At which point he in a position to compare consequences of each policy with goals;
6. And so choose the policy with consequences most closely matching his goals.
Rational policy making is possible only by „Economic Man‟. In contrast, public administration has
„Administrative Man‟ who „satisfies‟, does not „maximize‟. Moreover, in theworld in which we live what
prevails is „bounded rationality‟ even though the information revolution made possible by computers
makes available more and more information.
Other barriers also confront rational policy- making:
1. When policy- makers make policies, their basic instinct is self- preservation and organizational survival.
Figure: A Rational Model for a Decision System
31 32

17. CHAPTER- IV
Actors and Institutions in Public Policy
Theprimarytaskofgovernmentseemstobetheformulationandimplementationofpublicpolicies.
Governments‟ issues policies to generate economic development, provide education, guarantee personal
safety, expand job opportunities, and adopt many other policy initiatives which should lead to
development(TurnerandHulme.1997). TurnerandHulmefurthernotedthatgovernmentsoftenusetheir
own version of policy outcomes and initiatives to legitimize their hold on power. While opposing forces
belittle these same policies in order to justify their own claim to office. Be that as it may, the fate and
future of millions of people hinge on the outcomes and performances of government policies in
developing countries.
In developing countries, policy elites or central minds of government orcentral policymaking
processsystemsplaycrucialrolesintheprocessofpolicymaking andbringingaboutinstitutionalreforms
to implement them. Despite the fact that historical, cultural, international constraints, as well as societal
pressures, are essential in shaping the actions and perceptions of those who make authoritative decisions,
in developing nations policy elites or central minds of government play major roles in determining policy
andinstitutionaloutcomesandtheprocessthroughwhichissuesgetontoreform agendas,throughwhich
they are deliberated within government, andthroughwhichthey are pursued andsustained.
Scholars in the field of public policy have attributed the relative force of policy initiatives,
formulation and implementation to policy elites in developing countries. An assessment of the actors and
structures of policy making in developing countries tends to prove the prevalence of limited policy circles
compared to more developed states ( Dror. 1968; Horowitz, 1989). The policy structures in developing
countriesaremuchlesscomplexthanindevelopedcountries.Government elitesandindividualandsmall
group decisions play a greater role in policy decisions than complex organizations that could have
involved a relatively large segment of the affected population. More importantly, the political executive
claims a significant margin of power on the determination of issues to put on the policy agenda, and
formulate and allocate resources for the execution of policies. Dror (1968) noted that the political
executive in developing countries plays a larger role in formulating public policies than do the legislatures
and the public, not only because power is exceedingly concentrated, but the political executive also
possesses better latitude for establishing policies on many major issues without worrying about building
coalitions with over vested interests.
Cloete (1991) summarizes the major actors in the policy process as follows:
1. The political/power elitesdirectly engagedin governing;
2. Interest groups and societal actors inside and outside of public institutions entering into
competition to influence the contents ofpolicies;
3. Groups of citizens instructing representatives and legislators through elections, referenda, or
meetings to implement a specific policy agenda, or pressurizing them in various other more
unconventional ways to change governmentpolicies.
It has however been argued that except for some clientele groups which have more access to sharing the
politicalresources of policyelites indevelopingstates thelattertwosetsofsocietal actorsinfluence policy
making much less. Cloete says that elites who are directly involved in governing act as „gatekeepers‟ to
33
screen demands for change. They are in a more advantageous position to influence the end product than
other interest groups or citizens, who are not as close to the locus of decision making or implementation
of policies.
Official policy makers are those who occupy the formal offices prescribed by the political
community as authoritative. They are the members of the legislature, local councilors, ministers, senior
officials andjudges.Sincegovernments at thenational level areformedusuallybytheleaders of the
political party with the majority of seats in the legislature, it is important to understand how parliamentary
leadership is likely to behave. In the actual process of government it is widely recognized that parliament
is dominated by the executive in policy- making. Its supremacy is said to be real only in a legalistic sense.
The executive, and the power within it, especially of the cabinet, is of critical value to the policy making
function of the government.
Executive
One dimension of the study of policy- making attempts to assess the role of the executive. Modern
governments everywhere rely on executive leadership both in policy formulation and policy
implementation. In a parliamentary system with cabinet governments, the governments in most cases rely
ontheirback-bencherstoprovidethemwiththemajoritiesnecessarytoconductgovernmentbusiness.In
the United States,the Congress expectsthe President to initiate or send proposals for legislation. In most
developing countries, the executive probably plays a larger role in policy formulation because of a
greater concentration of power in the government.
The executive who assume critical roles and determine who gets what and when in most of the
developing countries are head of states or head of governments, cabinet ministers, ruling party stalwarts
and the executive bureaucracy and to some extent the list includes the legislators. Of these the heads of
thestates,cabinetministers andtheiradvisors areathighest echelonofthe policymakingstructurethatis
well placed to influence all of the important policy decisions. On account of the key position he holds, the
presidentortheprimeministercanbemuchmoreextensivelyinvolvedinmajordecisionmaking.Inacrisis
situationitismorelikelythatpolicymakingwillinvolvethepresidentorprimeminstercloseassociatesand
advisers who usually hold positions in the office of the President or Prime Minister. The latter can have
close political links with the head of the state and their loyalty may have been cemented through political,
professional, social, and even kinship ties‟.
Most ministers can also be intensively involved depending on the cabinet portfolios that they
assume,theclose personalandpoliticallinksthattheymay havewiththe executive andruling partiesand
thetechnicalorotherspecializedskillstheyposses.ManyAfricancountriessuchasEthiopia,majorethnic
groups have representation in the higher echelons of government. The executive bureaucracy, more
generally the public bureaucracy in Africa, Asia, and Latin America plays a significant part in public
policy making. In Kenya, for example, the public bureaucracy supported by the political executive and in
collaboration with expatriates, heavily influences policymaking. In quite a large number of developing
states,policyinitiativescanemergefrom theadministrative andtechnical staff ofgovernment.
Legislature
TheParliamentinEthiopiaortheCongressintheUnitedStatesaresupremepublicpolicy-making
bodies. Ripley feels that the Congress is at the heart of public policy making. Indeed in a parliamentary
34

18. form of government the legislature reigns supreme because the Prime Minister is dependent on support
from a parliamentarymajorityto remain in office.Wade and Philips observe: “Neither devolution nor
delegation of legislative authority infringes the supremacy of (the British) Parliament”.
Parliament in Ethiopia makes the laws and legitimizes the decisions of the government. It
authorizes taxation and expenditure, and makes the government accountable for financial decisions. In
additiontoitslegalroles,itsubjects administrative actionstocriticism andscrutiny.Itservesasaforumfor
public debate on issues of public policies, besides a forum for the expression of complaints and
grievances.The parliamentary systems in Germany and UK as well as in India, work along these lines.
Thus in law and constitutional theory, the power of the Parliament is unlimited in democratic
systems.Ontheotherhand,thecongressintheUnitedStateshaslesspowerthanaParliament,because
it does not participate in the process of choosing the head of the executive branch. Moreover the
constitutionoftheUnitedStatesprohibitslegislatorsfromholdingpositions intheexecutive.Forexample,
the officials of the President‟s Cabinet, unlike the cabinet in the parliamentary system, may not be
members of the congress. This design not only leads to the division of authority but also inhibits the
development of unnecessary informality between the two branches.
Manypolicies approved by theParliament are initiatedby the cabinet orCouncil of Ministers,
having been planned within the departments of state after consultation with affected interests.
Legislatures everywhere play a smaller part in the policy making process. The legislative leadership has
undisguisedly shifted into the hands of the executive and this process has been further reinforced and
strengthenedinademocraticcountrybylongcontinuingsinglepartydominanceinthecountry.
Bureaucracy
Public administration as an academic pursuit is defined as the process of achieving intended goals
in accordance with given policies through public organizations. In other words, Pubic Administration has
concentrated on the machinery for the implementation of public policies, as given rather than on making
them. Although Policy- making and Policy implementation are two distinct functions of the government,
they are closely interrelated. Policy is laid down by the legislature or the political authorities who are
vestedwiththepowerofgivingpolicythelegalauthority.Thelegislaturelaysdownapolicyingeneral
terms which is usually expressed in the form of acts and laws. In order to give more precise expression to
these acts and laws, the administrative arm of the government plays an important role in policy- making
also. But, inthemain, the administrative arm does not legally posses the power of making a policy; it
assists in policy making. Its responsibility lies in the sphere of policy implementation. In recent years,
however, the role of the administrative arm of the government in policy making has grown in importance.
Therefore,itseemsstrangethatpolicy-makingaswellasimplementationhavecomeintothehandsofthe
administrators.
Democratic norms, however, emphasize that the government should be political and not merely
administrative. Government by administrators is called „bureaucracy‟. The bureaucracy is an administrative
organisation consisting of non-elected employed officials and organized hierarchically in departments in
accordance with the rules governing the conditions of their service. In democratic countries, the
bureaucracy is an executive branch of the government. Civil servants or public administrators are
35
recruited in theory to serveministersby carrying out their decisions. The ministers decide on policies and
civil servants take necessary executive actions to implement them.
Despite the formal control of civil service by the political (elected) executive in the parliamentary
democracies, there is a continuous discussion on the role of higher civil servants in policy- making and a
constant fear that their influenceis too great. It has been argued, on theone hand, that their role is to
developandcarryoutthewillofthosewholaydownpolicies.Ontheotherhand,thereisrecognitionof
the fact that they are actively involved as are other pressure groups, political parties and the like, in the
making of policy in its formative as well as implementation process.
Reasons for Role in Policy- Making
The reasons for role of bureaucracy in Policy- Making are as follows. They are
i. The administrative role
ii. Knowledge and Experience
iii. Permanence position in the administrative organisation in comparison to the frequent rotation
of a minister.
In many African countries, the rapid growth of the bureaucratic apparatus that accompanied
the consolidation of power following independence had important implications for the structures of the
state and policy making. The corps of the proliferating bureaucracy and its members holds privileged
positions. The Ethiopian experience over the past two decades, however, showed that governing elites
approachtheproliferatingbureaucratic administrationwithsomemeasureofskepticism,mainlybecause
thepoliticalloyaltyofthebureaucracywasdoubled.Inordertokeepaneyeontheadministration,the
rulingpartiesareoftenusedasinstruments ofsupervision.Theprocessofpoliticizationandholdingofkey
offices by party functionaries has thus been carried out by injecting party political and ideological
doctrines into the civil service, the police, the army and local government. As a result the line of
distinctions between the party and the executive become nebulous as is still the case in Ethiopia. Similar
examples elsewhere in Africa are: the Tanzanian African National Union in Tanzania, the Popular
Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the National Resistance Movement (NRM) in Uganda
and many others.
Societal actors in Policy making
The Individual citizen
One dimension of the study of policy- making is concerned with explaining how an individual
citizen brings influence to bear on those entitled to take decisions. In a democratic form of government,
people are said to be masters of their own destinies and politically sovereign.
In representative democracy it is assumed that the power flows from the people.
Representation carries with it the clear implication of delegation from the people to a legislature. Through
legislature the representatives of the people frame laws and decide policy by a majority vote. Further, the
practice of submitting certain office- holders to periodic election will ensure that attention is paid to the
interests of those who are represented. In a democracy, people initiate the process of legislation and
policy- making by voting for candidates whose opinion and values they know.
Yet in practice, citizen participationin policy-making is negligible. Many do not seem to be
exercising theirfranchise or engaging in party politics. Acting alone, the individual citizen is hardly a
36