Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/A-Review-Of-Public-Policy-Development-I 👈

1. UGANDA MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE (UMI)
COURSE : PhD (Management and Administration)
MODULE Public Policy (Institutional Policy Design, Planning and Implementation)
LECTURER : Dr. Gerald K. Karyeija
TITLE : A review of Public Policy development in Uganda
STUDENT : Nelson Woira Kyagera
PhD/WKD/1/005
DATE : May 2013

2. 1
Abstract
A key aspect of public policy development is that government takes the lead and in the process it
endeavours to consult other stakeholders such as the citizenry and the third sector in order to
develop effective and acceptable policies. This process has its own challenges because public
policy operates in an extremely wide and complex environment and there is need to strike a
balance among a wide range of competing interests or priorities without losing sight of the
desired policy outcome. This paper examines the public policy process in the Ugandan context in
juxtaposition with a number of policy models proposed by different scholars and it reveals that
the Uganda Government molded its public policy process on the Linear/Rational Policy model.
The paper concludes that the public policy process in Uganda can further be strengthened by the
Government’s vigorous pursuance of a combination of the socio-economic, institutional, network
and group approaches in its public policy development and management framework.
Key Words: Public Policy, Linear/Rational Model, Incrementalist Model, Uganda Government
INTRODUCTION
The Public Policy process has been variously defined by different scholars but there emerges one
common denominator in all the definitions which is that, it is a process where government takes
the lead and endeavours to participatorily consult other stakeholders such as the citizenry and the
third sector in order to develop effective and acceptable policies. Hoggwood and Gunn (1984)
considered public policy to be ‘a label for a field of activities or as an expression of a general
purpose or desired state of affairs, or specific proposals, or decisions of government, or formal
authorization, or a programme, or output, or an outcome or theory or model or a process’.
Wayne Parsons (1991) defined public policy as ‘a rationale, a manifestation of considered
judgment, a study of nature, causes and the effect of public policy i.e. it is an attempt to define a
structure and get a rational basis to base action or inaction’. Dye (1998) on the other hand
proposed that ‘Public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do and the
difference it makes.’ Birkland (2001) summarized it as a process that includes the following
elements; policy is made in the name of the public, it is generally made or initiated by
government, it is interpreted and implemented by public or private actors, it is what the
government intends to do, and also what the government chooses not to do.

3. 2
Several models of the public policy process have been proposed and according to Sutton (2009)
these include; the linear model, the incremental model, the mixed scanning model, policy as
arguments model, policy as social experiments model and policy as interactive learning model
among others. He avers that the Linear Model is the most widely-held view of the way in which
policy is made. It outlines policy-making as a problem solving process which is rational,
balanced, objective and analytical. In this model, decisions are made in a series of sequential
phases, starting with the identification of a problem or issue and ending with a set of activities to
solve or deal with it. It is variously called the linear, mainstream, common-sense or rational
model. It proceeds in phases namely; ‘Agenda setting’ which involves recognizing and defining
the nature of the issue to be dealt with; ‘policy formulation’ where alternative decisions are
thought of and effected through court orders and legislative acts; ‘policy adoption’ which is done
legislatively through majority vote or consensus; ‘policy implementation’ that is carried out (top
bottom and bottom up) by street level bureaucrats; ‘policy assessment’ which involves auditing,
accounting, monitoring and evaluation; ‘policy adaptation’ where a feedback loop connects later
to earlier phases; ‘policy succession’ involving new policies and organisations built on old ones
and ‘policy termination’ which is the end phase.
In the Incrementalist Model, policy makers look at a small number of alternatives for dealing
with a problem and tend to choose options that differ only marginally from existing policy. For
each alternative, only the most important consequences are considered. There is no optimal
policy decision so a good policy is one that all participants agree on rather than what is best to
solve a problem. Incremental policy-making is essentially remedial; it focuses on small changes
to existing policies rather than dramatic fundamental changes. What is feasible politically is only
marginally different from the policies that exist. In this model, policy-making is also serial, you
have to keep coming back to problems as mistakes become apparent and are corrected, and new
approaches to the issues are developed. The model suggests that major changes occur through a
series of small steps, each of which does not fundamentally ‘rock the boat’. Lindblom (1980)
viewed this policy process as one of ‘disjointed incrementalism or muddling through.’
Walt (1994) proposed the Mixed-Scanning Model which covers the middle ground between the
linear or rational and the incrementalist models. It essentially divides decisions into a macro or
fundamental and micro or small classification. It involves the policy maker in taking a broad
view of the field of policy. The linear/rational model implies an exhaustive consideration of all

4. 3
possible options in detail, and the incrementalist approach suggests looking only at options
which from previous experience are known to exist. In contrast, a mixed-scanning approach
suggests taking a broad view of possible options and looking further into those which require a
more in-depth examination.
The ‘Policy as arguments’ approach is described by Juma and Clarke (1995) as one in which
policy reforms are presented as reasoned arguments. Policy is developed through debate between
state and societal actors. Participants present claims and justifications which others review
critically. Language not only depicts reality in such arguments, but also shapes the issues at hand
in these debates. It is a means of communication of ideas, but also serves to reflect certain
political stances, molding social reality according to outlook and ideology.
‘Policy as social experiment’ model sees social change as a process of trial and error, which
involves successive hypotheses being tested against reality in an experimental manner. It is based
in the experimental approach of the natural sciences.
‘Policy as interactive learning’ model is an approach rooted in a criticism of development policy
as being ‘top-down’, not generated from the communities in which polices are implemented. It
argues for an actor-perspective, emphasizing the need to take into account the opinions of
individuals, agencies and social groups that have a stake in how a system evolves. This model
promotes an interaction and sharing of ideas between those who make policy and those who are
influenced most directly by the outcome. An example of this model is the ‘participatory rural
appraisal methods’ advocated by Chambers (1983).
PUBLIC POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA
In 2009, the Uganda Government developed and adopted a working document on the public
policy development process titled ‘A guide to policy development and management in Uganda’.
According to this guide, good policy-making can be characterized by the following generic
features; Forward looking, Outward looking, Innovative and Flexible, Joined up, Inclusive,
Evidence based, Evaluated and also involves Periodic Reviews. The guide goes further to
explain what each of these generic features entails as follows.
The ‘Forward Looking’ feature involves defining policy outcomes and taking a long term view;
‘Outward Looking’ involves taking account of the national, regional, and international situations;
learning from the experiences of other countries and recognizing socio-economic, cultural and

5. 4
political variations. The ‘Innovative and Flexible’ characteristic focuses on questioning
established ways of dealing with things and encouraging new and creative ideas, identifying and
managing risk; while the‘ Joined Up’ feature considers looking beyond institutional boundaries;
setting cross-cutting objectives; defining and communicating joint working arrangements across
departments; and ensuring that implementation is part of the policy process.
‘Inclusiveness’ involves consulting those responsible for implementation and those affected by
the policy; carrying out an impact assessment. Policy should be ‘Evidence Based’ which ensures
that policy decisions and advice upon the best available evidence from a wide range of sources;
ensuring that evidence is available in an accessible and meaningful form.
Also good policy should be ‘Evaluated’ which focuses on ensuring systematic evaluation of the
effectiveness of policy is built into the policy making process.
‘Periodic Review’ involves steps which ensure that existing or established policy is constantly
reviewed to find out whether policy implementation is really dealing with problems it was
designed to solve. The ‘Lessons Learned’ characteristic involves learning from experience of
what works and what does not and building on the lessons back into the policy-making process.
As a sequel to the above, the Uganda Government further views the policy management process
to involve five phases, each of which poses particular management challenges. These phases
include; policy initiation or identification, policy analysis, decision making, implementation, and
monitoring and evaluation. Policy initiation involves accurate identification and understanding
what the social, economic or political issue is. It is easy to think that a problem and its solutions
are obvious, but thinking in greater depth about the outcome to be achieved and what is
preventing it from happening can often reveal that the issue is much more complex. The process
of policy identification helps one not to confuse the symptoms with the problem. Policy analysis
is the process of determining which of various alternative policies will most achieve a given set
of goals. Policy analysis can be qualitative or quantitative; this may include using case studies,
survey research, statistical analysis, and model building among others. In all cases, it involves
defining the problem and the evaluation criteria; identifying all alternatives; evaluating them; and
recommending the best policy agenda for adoption. Decision-making is made in the context of a
set of needs, preferences an individual or organization has and values they seek. The decision
making process must be regarded as a continuous process integrated in the interaction with the

6. 5
environment. Yet, at another level, it might be regarded as a problem solving activity which is
terminated when a satisfactory solution is found. Decision-making is considered rational when
one systematically applies knowledge, skills and evidence to arrive at a logical conclusion. In
Government it involves balancing of political realities without adversely affecting would be
stakeholders.
Implementation is the execution of public policy by public servants working in public agencies.
This process consists of rule-making, rule administration and rule-adjudication. Factors
impacting on implementation include the legislative intent, the administrative capacity of the
implementing bureaucracy, interest group activity and opposition or executive support.
Monitoring and Evaluation is an important element of any good policy; indeed every policy
should be monitored and evaluated. Monitoring and evaluation allows government to determine
whether a policy is serving its original purpose in the most cost effective and efficient manner.
Policies need to be periodically reviewed and kept up to date to avoid wastage and misallocation
of scarce resources and detect the unintended consequences.
Based on the above framework Uganda Government’s policy-management process in practice
involves four stages in which the government makes, elaborates, gives legal and financial effects
to, and actually delivers their policy commitments.
The first stage requires the Executive to set broad policy commitments binding it to implement a
particular set of policies. Secondly, Departments and Ministries prepare policy and budget
proposals to deliver on the broad policy commitments.
In the third stage the Executive provides adequate budget removes procedural obstacles and
anticipates the likely reaction of external players and the fourth stage focuses implementation by
Departments and Ministries.
From the above prescription contained in the Uganda Government’s guide on policy
development one can conclude that the public policy process in Uganda is modeled on the Linear
or Rational Model as it is clearly premised on the stages or sequential process.
According to Jann and Wegrich (2007) the idea of modeling the policy process in terms of
stages was first put forward by Lasswell (1956). As part of his attempt to establish a
multidisciplinary and prescriptive policy science, Lasswell introduced this model of the policy
process comprised of seven stages: intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application,
termination, and appraisal. While this sequence of stages has been contested (in particular that

7. 6
termination comes before appraisal), the model itself has been highly successful as a basic
framework for the field of policy studies and became the starting point of a variety of typologies
of the policy process. Based on the growth of the field of policy studies during the 1960s and
1970s, the stages models served the basic need to organize and systemize a growing body of
literature and research. Subsequently, a number of different variations of the stages typology
have been put forward, usually offering further differentiations of (sub-) stages. The versions
developed by Brewer and deLeon (1983), May and Wildavsky (1978), Anderson (1975), and
Jenkins (1978) are among the most widely adopted ones. Today, the differentiation between
agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision making, implementation, and evaluation (eventually
leading to termination) has become the conventional way to describe the chronology of a policy
process.
Jann and Wegrich further note that, arguably, Lasswell’s understanding of the model of the
policy process was more prescriptive and normative rather than descriptive and analytical. His
linear sequence of the different stages had been designed like a problem-solving model and it
resonates with other prescriptive rational models of planning and decision-making developed in
organization theory and public administration. While empirical studies of decision-making and
planning in organizations, known as the behavioral theory of decision making (Simon 1947),
have repeatedly pointed out that real world decision-making usually does not follow this
sequence of discrete stages, the stages perspective still counts as an ideal-type of rational
planning and decision-making. According to such a rational model, any decision- making should
be based on a comprehensive analysis of problems and goals, followed by an inclusive collection
and analysis of information and a search for the best alternative to achieve these goals. This
includes the analysis of costs and benefits of the different options and the final selection of the
course of action. Measures have to be carried out and results appraised against the objectives and
adjusted if needed. One of the major reasons of the success and durability of the stages typology
is therefore its appeal as a normative model for ideal-type, rational, evidence-based policy
making. In addition, the notion is congruent with a basic democratic understanding of elected
politicians taking decisions which are then carried out by a neutral public service. The rational
model therefore also shows some tacit concurrence with the traditional dichotomy of politics and
administration, which was so powerful in public administration theory until after World War II.
Lasswell focused on the contributions and interaction of different actors and institutions in the

8. 7
policy process. Furthermore, the stages perspective helped to overcome the bias of political
science on the input-side (political behavior, attitudes, and interest organizations) of the political
system. Framing the political process as a continuous process of policy-making allowed
assessing the cumulative effects of the various actors, forces, and institutions that interact in the
policy process and therefore shape its outcomes. Still, the stages of policy-making were
originally conceived as evolving in a chronological order. First, problems are defined and put on
the agenda, next policies are developed, adopted and implemented; and, finally these policies
will be assessed against their effectiveness and efficiency and either terminated or restarted.
ALTERNATIVE VIEWS ON THE LINEAR / RATIONAL POLICY MODEL
Sutton (1999) argues that a ‘linear model’ of policy-making, characterized by objective analysis
of options and separation of policy from implementation, is inadequate. Instead, policy and
policy implementation are best understood as a ‘chaos of purposes and accidents’. A
combination of concepts and tools from different disciplines can be deployed to put some order
into the chaos, including policy narratives, policy communities, discourse analysis, regime
theory, change management, and the role of street-level bureaucrats in implementation.
Also according to Fischer (2006), policy processes rarely feature clear-cut beginnings and
endings. At the same time, policies have always been constantly reviewed, controlled, modified,
and sometimes even terminated; policies are perpetually reformulated, implemented, evaluated,
and adapted. But these processes do not evolve in a pattern of clear-cut sequences; instead, the
stages are constantly meshed and entangled in an ongoing process. Moreover, policies do not
develop in a vacuum, but are adopted in a crowded policy space that leaves little space for policy
innovation (Hogwood and Peters 1983). Instead, new theories of the policy cycle only modify,
change, or supplement older policies, or more likely compete with them or contradict each other.
Hogwood and Peters (1983) suggested the notion of policy succession to highlight that new
policies develop in a dense environment of already existing policies. Therefore, earlier policies
form a central part of the systemic environment of policy-making; frequently other policies act as
key obstacles for the adoption and implementation of a particular measure. At the same time,
policies create side-effects and become the causes of later policy problems across sectors (e.g.,

9. 8
road construction leading to environmental problems) as well as within sectors (e.g., subsidies
for agricultural products leading to overproduction) and, hence, new policies themselves.
Despite its limitations, the policy cycle has developed into the most widely applied framework to
organize and systemize the research on public policy
John (1998) also disagrees with the ‘Stages Models’ and points out the inadequacy of four of
them by postulating on; the inadequacy of the sequential model, the limitations of
implementation analysis, the changing project of policy analysis and the false debate between
rational and incremental models of decision making. John argues that policy making is messy,
involves twists and turns of decisions, reverses, failures and surprises. Accordingly he observes
that key attraction of the sequential idea is that it forces analysts to look at how political systems
respond to policy problems as it puts into concrete form the idea that political systems process
inputs and creates outputs but the more policy analysts acknowledge complexity in decision
making, the more the linear idea dissolves . With regard to the limits of policy implementation
analysis, he argues that what appears to be a neutral and straight forward mechanism to translate
intentions into reality is in fact a complex matrix of public, quasi public and private decision
making bodies, all of which have their own autonomy, interests and values. Similarly, in the
changing project of policy analysis John proposes that policy analysis is not about prescription
but about setting up mechanisms to ensure that debate and learning takes place and this brings
into focus the false debate between rational and incremental models of decision making. The
main problem with rational-incrementalist debate is that both models capture elements of
decision making though in many cases they are presented as polar opposites. Aspects of each
type of behaviour occur most of the time when political and bureaucratic actors make policy
choices and carry out implementation therefore decision making can be rational at certain stages
at other stages it is incremental so there is no mutual exclusivity.
CONCLUSION
The Uganda Government observes that better policy-making enhances the involvement of the
public in the decision-making process, encourages greater citizens’ participation and better
exploits the creativity and diversity in organizations and communities (Uganda Government,
1999). Better policy-making has the potential to secure public confidence through greater

10. 9
transparency so an improved capacity for policy analysis ensures that the best policy options are
presented to the decision makers. Therefore an effective policy management framework will
help greatly in bringing out the priorities of the government and will broadly ensure that policies
with the greatest benefits to society are implemented over those that may benefit only some
sections of the population.
In an attempt to achieve an effective policy development framework, the Uganda government
molded its public policy making process on the Linear/Stages model consisted of the following
distinct stages; policy initiation or identification, policy analysis, decision making,
implementation, and monitoring and evaluation.
However the Linear/Rational Model has some shortcomings which include; ignoring the fact that
practical policy making is more complex and full of twists and turns than what is presented in the
linear model, failure to take into consideration that in practice there are no clear-cut beginnings
and endings which fact negates the existence of distinct phases, and also the non recognition of
the nature of policies that they have always been constantly reviewed, controlled, modified, and
sometimes even terminated. In this regard I’m persuaded to concur with Fischer (2006) that
policies are perpetually reformulated, implemented, evaluated, and adapted but these processes
do not evolve in a pattern of clear-cut sequences; instead, the stages are constantly meshed and
entangled in an ongoing process.
In addition to adoption of the Linear/Rational model, the policy making process in Uganda
would therefore benefit from pursuance of a combination of approaches to include the socio-
economic, institutional, network and group approaches to enrich the process.
According to John (1998) the socio economic approach’s main concern is that the policy process,
far from being a rational weighing up of alternatives, is driven by powerful socio- economic
forces that set the agenda, structure decision makers’ choices, constrain implementation, and
ensure that the interests of system as a whole determine the outputs and outcomes of the political
system. The institutional approach considers institutions to be the main arena in which policy
making takes place. In this regard, institutions include political organizations, laws and rules,
that are central to every political system and they constrain how decision makers behave. The
group and network approach stresses the importance of interactions between the participants in
the policy process and recognize that policy emerges as a result of informal associations. In this
regard it is agreed that in many instances groups and networks contribute to the agenda,

11. 10
influence the legislative and executive decisions, usually participate in the decisions about
implementation and often implement policies themselves.
Since policy emerges from interrelationships between intentions and actions of political
participants, the Linear/Rational model explains that through many chains of cause and effect or
commands and responses, policy emerges in stages. It is conceivable therefore that the linear
policy model adopted by the Uganda Government can be strengthened further by its vigorous
pursuance of a combination of the socio-economic, institutional, network and group approaches
in policy development and management.

12. 11
REFERENCES
A guide to policy development and management in Uganda (2009). Uganda Government.
Dye, T.R. (2004). Understanding Public Policy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Fischer, F., & Miller, G. J. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics,
and methods (Vol. 125). crc Press.
Fischer, F. (2006). Deliberative policy analysis as practical reason: integrating empirical and
normative arguments. Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods, 125,
223.
Hill, Michael (1997), The Policy Process. Pearson Prentice Hall
Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). 4 Theories of the Policy Cycle. Handbook of public policy
analysis, 43.
John, P. (1998). Analyzing public policy. Burns & Oates.
Sutton, R. (1999). The policy process: an overview. London: Overseas Development Institute.