KENYATTA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
SCHOOL

EDUCATION

UNIT CODE

AHT-317

UNIT TITLE

DEPARTMENT:

ELEMENTS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

HISTORY ARCHEOLOGY AND POLITICAL STUDIES

REG NO

E35S/16093/2012

NAME

DENNIS OLUDHE

LECTURER
TASK

: PROF. WASONGA
:

discuss ecological factors that influence policy making process and

outcome

Date of submission: 8TH February 2016

Introduction
Policy making has been defined as the process of transformation which turns political inputs into
political outputs. It is the mechanism through which society's collective demands are monitored
by the political system for conversion into action. As envisioned here, the role of policy making
is not so much the resolution of particular decisions as it is the creation of a decision
environment a set of rules, roles and procedures which guide behavior and shape expectations in
which a variety of connected or related decisions can be made. This decision environment is
probably a crucial concept but its definition and comprehension remain elusive. Students of
decision making' are increasingly unhappy about visualizing decisions as discrete, observable
steps in some sort of rational, incremental process. It appears more realistic to think of decisionmaking as a series of gradually narrowing choices in which participants at any one step, either
knowingly or unwittingly, restrict the options available at the next.
The Policy Process: Formulation, Legislation and Implementation
Environmental policy is a broad issue, mostly because of the socio-political dimensions of the
issue. In order to first start a policy process, the problem for which a policy is to be created must
be identified and the policy holding a solution to the problem. Researchers and stakeholders will
investigate the problem to identify if the policy will reach the policy making agenda. Policies
must be to improve societys health and wellbeing. In the United States for instance (U.S.)
public health related issues that require a formulation of a new policy and come from local, state,
or federal legislations which ruling govern the provision of health care services and regulations.
Objective of Policy

The objective of the regulations is to protect human health and the environment. The effective
enforcement of the water quality regulations will lead to a marked reduction of water-borne
diseases and hence a reduction in the health budget the regulations also provide guidelines and
standards for the discharge of poisons, toxins, noxious, radioactive waste or other pollutants into
the aquatic environment in line with the Third Schedule of the regulations. The regulations have
standards for discharge of effluent into the sewer and aquatic environment.
Formulation
The first step in creating this a new policy is the idea on how to address the current problem.
During this first step, brainstorming is often encouraged during the formulation process so that
there is more than one potential solution to the problem Another consideration for policy
formulation is determining if the policy will need to involve local, state, and/or federal
government involvement to be put on their agenda. There are many ways to approach any given
problem, and during policy formation, relevant individuals (such as stakeholders and
researchers) and groups will determine the different ideas to approach the proposed policy. An
agenda is a set of problems that government wants to solve. Usually there are so many of them
that they must be prioritized, with some problems getting earlier and more attention than others
any sort of crisis that involves the direct safety of staff and patients will take priority over other
issues. Since this policy is not a crisis, there is not a pressing issue on the policy makers agenda.
Legislative Phase
During the legislative phase, conflicting plans on formulating the policy is ideal for a better
scope of possible solutions to the issue. The proposed policy must be able to be translated into

comprehensible rules and guidelines. There are many that might takes part in the formulation of
the policy such as agency officials, interest groups or stakeholders, legislators, and research
organizations. One version of the policy is eventually decided upon, but the implementation of
the policy is only enacted when legislation is passed, or regulations are finalized or a decision
has been passed by the Supreme Court the direction of the policy must be concise so that
agencies involved with the new policy can comply with the new legislation.
Different people approach decision making in different ways. Individuals are unique in terms of
their personalities, abilities, beliefs and values. They also each have traditions of understanding
out of which they think and act. Even when the same data is apparently available to all, people
will interpret and assimilate the data in different ways and at different speeds. Some people are
very confident about weighing up a situation and making decisions, others less so. Some like to
take more risks than others. Competences, such as the ability to listen to other people, also vary.
Social pressures affect everyone to varying degrees and the approval or disapproval of friends
and colleagues may be more important to the decision maker than being right every time.
Political beliefs also vary and people will rank differently, for example, individual and social
gains from a situation. Each individual develops personal beliefs and values, including those
relating to their environment, through different life experiences, and hence brings a different
perspective to a decision situation. Some people will also have more at stake in a decision
outcome than others. There are therefore many issues around who is involved in decision-making
processes and how they participate.
The garbage-can approach to decision making showed that the decision situation is often messy
and complex and that apparently unrelated events can affect decision outcomes, depending on

what else is going on at the time the decision is taken. Elements of change, risk and uncertainty
are common in decision situations and recognizing and making sense of these elements are two
of the main challenges that decision makers face. Risk implies that we know what the possible
outcomes of a decision may be and that we know, or can work out, the probability of each
outcome. Specific criteria can help to identify areas where there is agreement and disagreement.
Criteria for the new housing site might include, for example, how existing land use is valued and
by whom, services and housing provision available in the vicinity, likely disturbance or
enhancement of the area and implications for road safety. There will be different views on what
is acceptable for each of these aspects and often a need for negotiation. Criteria such as these are
frequently worked out at different levels, as part of the regional as well as more local planning
processes.
A decision is made at a particular time in a particular set of circumstances. The decision situation
can change very rapidly so what appeared to be a rational decision at one time might later appear
to be anything but that. One aspect of the time dimension that is particularly apparent in the
garbage-can decision-making approach is that the outcome of a decision may be affected by
concurrent, but otherwise only marginally related, events. One example of this might be the
unexpected availability of additional resources or a reduction in resources because of another
project going on at the same time elsewhere. Another example might be the way that strong
opposition to, or support for, a new development may unexpectedly surface because of events
elsewhere. Time is also a factor that can affect the nature of peoples participation in decision
making. Skills are needed to be able to judge the urgency of decision-making processes, who
needs to be involved in which stages of decision making within a particular time and resource
frame and to what extent timing can be negotiated and with whom.

Conclusion
There are many interest groups involved in a policy making process. Many policy proposals are
turned down for various reasons to include unnecessary policies, uncompressible proposals, and
much more. Many policies are proposed for the interest and safety of the public and staff. Policy,
as understood by the respondents in this study, has a number of functions. These include setting
standards and ensuring a minimum level of uniformity in implementation; providing a
framework for action and for dealing with potentially sensitive issues; and promoting the
transparency and accountability of service providers. In general, respondents appeared to have
high expectations of the ability of policy to influence the actions of environment and health
departments. Environment and health departments at the local government level are engaged in a
number of policy development and implementation processes. Public participation in, and
awareness of, policies is also seen to be a method of enforcing the accountability of councilors
and officials by reducing their discretion to take arbitrary decisions. A number of constraints to
policy development include inadequate environmental and health data; lack of co-ordination and
consistency between policies under development; inadequate attention to implementation
mechanisms and lack of capacity amongst officials.

Reference
Ahluwalia, S. K. (2010). International environment policy. Jaipur, India: ABD Publishers.
Colebatch, H. K. (2012). Policy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gerston, L. N. (2012). Public policy making: Process and principles. Armonk, N.Y: M.E.
Sharpe.
Sillars, M. O. (2013). Argumentation and the decision making process. New York: Wiley.
Zito, A. R. (2010). Learning and governance in the EU policy making process. London:
Routledge.