Presented at the Public Policy Executive program conducted by the Strathmore business school in Nairobi, Kenya. August, 2015

1. Introduction to the Policy Process
By Dr. Robert Mudida,
Senior Lecturer

2. Kenya’s key public policy issues
• In a recent World Bank Study (2013) entitled Achieving Shared Prosperity
for All, nine priorities are outlined for the new Kenyan government under
three main categories:
• Realising the potential of every Kenyan
• Achieving equity: Establishing a more equitable distribution for example,
in health and education.
• Improving quality: This entails, for example, in education improving
learning attainment by reducing teacher absenteeism and increasing
teaching hours in the classroom.
• Mitigating vulnerability, for example, improving the management and use
of water resources to expand irrigation, and establish a unified and
scalable social protection programme, to help respond to disaster.
2

3. Kenya’s key public policy issues
• Creating a competitive economy
• Maintaining stability and consistency: maintaining
macroeconomic and political stability will be fundamental.
• Expanding infrastructure: the new government will need to
maintain investments in key sectors such as energy and roads.
Structural change, including the port of Mombasa and rail
services will be a key determinant of the future quality of
Kenya’s infrastructure.
• Reforming agriculture: A turnaround in agriculture is vital,
especially in the maize sector.
3

4. Completing institutional transformation
• Making devolution accountable: The functioning of
the new counties will determine the quality of
service delivery in the next few years.
• Implementing judicial reform: there is a need to
improve access to courts and establish an automated
system for reducing backlog, delays and
opportunities for corruption.
• Managing the people’s money well: Public finances
should be well managed.
4

5. The Policy process-Step 1- The problem
• How the problem is defined will influence the policy
alternatives considered.
• A certain level of specificity will likely lead to better
results.
• If the problem is, for example, defined as high
unemployment, a broad array of policy options could
be offered as a solution.
• The danger of this approach is that overly ambitious
plans often end up as no more than lofty and
unfulfilled goals.
5

6. Step 1: The problem
• A broad problem definition can lead to
interventions that really do not fit the
problem.
• An example is the problem of youth
unemployment in Kenya which is a common
problem in many states.
6

7. Step 1: The problem
• Collecting good information and determining who is most
affected by the problem is key to effectively framing the issue.
• Examples of information or data that needs to be collected
include:
• Who is affected by this problem?
• Is the problem growing?
• What is currently being done to address the problem?
• Is it working?
• Analyse these questions in the context of youth
unemployment in Kenya.
7

8. Step 1: Good sources of data about the problem
• Good sources of information include
government statistics, reports from
universities, policy organisations, or business
associations, recent media coverage, and
interviews with experts and others.
• The data collected does not need to be
exhaustive but it should reflect a solid
understanding of the issue.
8

9. Step 1: Keep re-defining the problem
• As you collect information and work through
the policy process, the problem definition can
be changed or refined.
• Keep coming back to this definition and make
certain that it reflects the growing
understanding of the problem.
9

10. Is the problem part of a larger problem?
• What part of your problem is appropriate for your level of
government or department to solve?
• Many social and economic problems are multi-faceted and
affect a number of different sectors, regions, or groups of
people.
• In defining the problem, it is important to identify the part of
the problem that could be effectively addressed by your
organisation or level of government.
• The more specific you are in the definition of the problem, the
more likely it is that your policy will have a meaningful impact.
10

11. Who is concerned about the problem?
• Many public problems affect a number of persons in
a variety of different ways.
• Rarely are there solutions or resources to satisfy all
stakeholders or interested parties.
• For example, citizens have an interest in cleaner air
and water, while industry is likely to oppose efforts to
restrict or tax their pollution output.
• Policymakers need to find a balance that protects
citizens yet does not squeeze industry to the point
that its net revenues decline, workers are laid off, or
factories move to regions with more liberal policies. 11

12. Who is concerned about the problem?
• Understanding who is affected by the problem or any proposed policy
change is a critical part of defining the problem.
• This is because a problem can have many dimensions that can only be fully
understood from the perspective of different stakeholders.
• Important questions are:
• Will be a proposed solution hurt the vested interests of some groups?
• Will the solution change the behaviour (positively or negatively) of some
other group?
• Stakeholder analysis helps to identify the interests and influences of all
stakeholders and develop a strategy of how to productively engage the
various stakeholders in implementing a proposed solution?
12

13. Establish the evaluation criteria
• Evaluation criteria help to clarify the
programme’s goals and objectives and are the
basis on which proposed solutions will be
judged.
• Criteria are often established by the major
decisionmakers and may be explicit or implicit.
• The key criteria are include: Efficiency; Cost;
Political acceptability; Net benefit; Equity;
Uncertainty; Administrative ease; Legal issues.
13

14. Evaluation criteria
• Cost: What is the cost of the programme to
taxpayers? For example, the cost of
implementing the programme in terms of
staff, equipment, operating expenses, benefits
paid, and so on.
• Net benefit: What is the net benefit from the
point of the beneficiary? Participants should
receive some benefit, but how do these relate
to the costs involved?
14

15. Evaluation criteria
• Efficiency: What is the programme’s efficiency? Is it
the least costly way to produce the desired good or
service?
• Equity: Many social programmes redistribute money
from taxpayers to the unemployed or poor with the
goal of creating more equity. Another important
equity consideration is the distribution of benefits
among programme participants and between
programme participants and other poor families.
15

16. Evaluation criteria
• Administrative ease: How easily can the solutions be
implemented? Will the solution require a new
structure, staff, or other resources?
• Legal issues: Does the proposed solution require a
new law or approval from other government
departments or levels of governments? Does your
client or agency have the legal authority to
implement the proposed solution?
16

17. Evaluation criteria
• Political acceptability: Will the proposed
solution be acceptable to political leaders or
be popular among general citizens?
• Extent of uncertainty: How much uncertainty
is there in implementing the policy (especially
if it is a new programme)?
17

18. Step 3: Identify alternative policies
• Often there is a limited number of truly
applicable policy options.
• However, in developing a short-list of
potential solutions, it is worth considering the
full range of options.
• Brainstorming, talking to experts, and
consulting other agencies or regions that may
have faced similar problems are good ways to
generate policy ideas.
18

19. Identify alternative policies
• Different policy options will often tackle
different aspects of the problem.
• As one works through the policy options it
may be worthwhile revisiting the definition of
the problem.
• Sometimes the final policy will actually be a
combination of approaches.
19

20. Identify alternative policies
• Governments have a number of different ways
that they can accomplish their goals.
• The most obvious is to provide the particular
goods and services.
• Other interventions use the market to achieve
policy goals by providing private sector players
with certain incentives, such as subsidizing
real estate development to foster the creation
of new housing or commercial space.
20

21. Identify alternative policies
• Governments can use their “police authority,”
for example, to pass laws to prohibit the sale
of drugs or to require the use of seat belts.
• And governments or community groups can
use moral persuasion to achieve objectives,
such as mounting campaigns to educate the
public about the dangers of smoking or inform
the public about an upcoming election.
21

22. Types of policy actions
• The main public policy options in terms of the level of
intervention and resources required are as follows:
• Direct/monetary: Direct government action using public
funds to provide police force and protection or to purchase
utility services from a private contractor.
• Direct/nonmonetary: Direct government action that does not
require direct budget outlays (though enforcing laws and
regulations do have real costs) such as prohibiting driving
under the influence of alcohol or requiring licenses for
emitting pollutants.
22

23. Types of policy actions
• Indirect/monetary: The use of government funds to
encourage others to act in a specific manner by, for
example, taxing corporate profits or subsidizing
hospitals to provide health care.
• Indirect/nonmonetary: The use of information to
encourage others to act in a specific manner by, for
example, informing small business owners about
services tailored to their needs, or by using a public
relations campaign to encourage citizens not to litter.
23

24. Types of policy actions
• Not all problems lend themselves to all of these approaches.
• For example, a new tax would not be introduced simply to
fund an after-school programme for youth, nor would it be
appropriate to merely implore citizens not to murder one
another.
• However, in addressing a policy problem it is a good exercise
to consider these various types of policy actions. Too often
policy makers or analysts become accustomed to approaching
all problems with the same basic tool such as always providing
new services.
24

25. Evaluate and compare the options
• After generating as many policy ideas as
possible, it is necessary to narrow the options
to a few key strategies based on evaluation
criteria.
• It is always good to include ‘do nothing’
option. Sometimes the options are likely to be
so ineffective, and resources or stakeholder
interest is so limited that doing nothing (at
least for the time being is the best option).
25

26. Evaluate and compare the options
• Draw up possible policy scenarios, including impact
on stakeholders.
• Once the main policy options have been selected,
the next step is to distinguish among the options
based on the evaluation criteria established for this
particular policy problem.
• It is important to note any important constraints.
Constraints are generally related to the weighing of
criteria. If, for example, budget constraints are very
severe, then the programme cost will be a critical
factor.
26

27. Evaluate and compare the options
• The involvement of different actors (participants,
various parts of government, NGOs, private firms,
interest groups) may also be discussed in the
evaluation criteria as a constraint of an opportunity.
• A table or matrix is an effective way to compare the
alternative policies.
• The options may perform differently on many of the
criteria. This is true with many policy problems and
rarely does a solution satisfy all the evaluation
criteria.
27

28. Evaluate and compare the options
• Evaluating the alternatives is the core of the analysis.
• After constructing such a table, most analysts write a
narrative that describes how the options compare, highlights
the most important criteria, and explains any conclusions that
might be drawn.
• The analysis should be well structured and as objective as
possible.
• A policy maker should be able to see how each option
measures against the relevant criteria. The policy maker may
question the analyst on some of the assumptions made in the
analysis. For example, costs may assume too high an interest
rate.
28

29. Select the preferred option
• This is the time for a reality check. Although a certain
option may look good on paper, it may not be
feasible given the present constraints (such as
limited time, budget, political will and so on).
• A technically superior alternative may not be a
politically viable one.
• Don’t rush to the preferred option before
considering the alternatives.
• Check the preferred option with the stakeholders.
29

30. Select the preferred option
• Policy recommendations must be justified.
• A strong analysis will likely point toward a
particular policy recommendation, but is
important that a policy recommendation be
accompanied by a clear justification.
• The justification can be a conclusion of sorts.
30

31. Implementation, monitoring and evaluation
• Implementation plan as important as policy
choice
• Monitoring the short term, evaluation the
long term
• Data sources and procedures for monitoring
and evaluation to be established at the
beginning
31

32. IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMME AND POLICY INITIATIVES: CHECKLIST
• (from Australia National Audit Office)
32

33. Implementation during policy development
• Was implementation planned when the policy
was worked out?
• Do the priorities of this policy coincide with
others?
• Are proposed commitments checked for
delivery implications?
33

34. Implementation during policy development
• Is the timeframe consistent with resources
available?
• Are contingency measures planned?
• Are there uncertainties that will affect
implementation?
• Are record keeping and accountability in
place?
34

35. Governance
• Is a single officer accountable for delivery, and
do they have authority?
• Are governance arrangements built in?
• Does the policy have high-level support?
• Clarity of purpose and relationships?
35

36. Governance
• Are whole-of-government implications worked
out?
• Do governance arrangements include
reporting and review?
• Has sufficient attention been given to conflicts
of interest?
36

37. Risk management
• Have implementation risks been identified
and minimised?
• Does the responsible officer have access to
risk management resources?
• Is the government aware of the risks?
• Are risks appropriately shared?
37

38. Risk management
• Are risk treatments followed through
systematically?
• Are there contingency plans?
• Will implementation problems be identified
and reported?
• When mistakes occur will they be admitted
and corrected?
38

39. Planning for implementation
• Implementation plan?
• Is implementation owned by senior staff?
• Has implementation been tested?
• Does planning cover organisational change,
procurement?
• Is third party action in the plan?
• Is there a single plan?
39

40. Planning for implementation
• Are timelines realistic?
• Is implementation broken into small steps?
• Adequate review points in the plan?
• Is managing change part of the plan?
40

41. Procurement and contract management
• Are procurement and contracts built into the
plan?
• Is the procurement strategy right for long-
term service delivery?
• Does the supply industry understand the
requirements?
• Will the responsible officer have access to
contract management skills?
41

42. Procurement and contract management
• Does evaluation measure long-term value for
money or just short-term price?
• Have ethical and probity issues been taken
into account?
• Are risks shared correctly in the contract?
• Is there long-term contract management?
42

43. Stakeholder management
• Is the purpose of stakeholder engagement
clear?
• Have the right stakeholders been engaged?
• How will stakeholder engagement be
managed during implementation?
• How will the contribution of stakeholders be
used?
43

44. Stakeholder management
• Will engagement with stakeholders inform the
communication strategy?
• Are there plans to manage conflicts of interest
that arise from stakeholder involvement?
44

45. Resources
• Implementation skills available and valued?
• Adequate resources for implementation?
• Adequate attention to cultural and change
management issues?
• Adequate measures for estimating,
monitoring and controlling spending?
• Are information systems adequate for
implementation?
45

46. Communication
• Has communication been considered,
including obstacles?
• Is communication strategy structured around
the success criteria of the policy?
• Does the comms. strategy address proactive
and reactive elements?
46

47. Communication
• Is the implementation clear about the comms.
strategy?
• Are communications targeted to each
stakeholder group?
• Is communication lined up with roll-out plan?
• Is there an overall communication strategy?
47

48. Monitoring and review
• Is there monitoring and review of key
deliverables?
• Are data sufficient?
• Are implementation reports submitted?
• Are risks reported to senior management?
• Are lessons learned before moving on to the
next stage?
48

49. Monitoring and review
• Is there willingness to intervene, or stop the
policy if it is not delivering?
• Have reporting requirements of all parties
been agreed?
• Is the lead agency’s role supported by other
partners?
• Is there feedback to learn from
implementation?
49

50. Alternative models
The policy process in the real world can be much messier
than suggested by the rational model:
• solutions may precede problem definition
• important players may have reasons for their solution
that have nothing to do with the declared policy
outcomes
• some outside agency (a Ministry of Finance, a donor
agency) may impose a policy process (likely to be less
successful.
• no single programme or policy can solve the problem
without reference to one or more other agencies.

51. The ‘garbage can’
• Organisations discover their preferences through actions, rather
than acting on the basis of preferences. This is counter to the view
that organisations have preferences that are essentially the
aggregation of individual preferences.
• Organisations operate through trial and error rather than
deliberative action.
• The people making decisions and the audiences for decisions
change while the processes of decision-making occur – people
move jobs, get posted to other work or the personnel in the
decision team simply gets changed.
• Decisions are sometimes made when the goals are unknown to the
participants.
• Decision makers have limited time to spend on making decisions.

52. Policy making in the garbage can
• problem resolution is not the most likely
outcome of decision making
• specialised access structure and unsegmented
decision structures produce quick decisions

53. A Non- linear Policy Model
53
Politics
SolutionProblem
Coalition
building
Agenda
setting
Capacity
developmen
tPolicy
learning
Window of
opportunity

54. The end
54