.

INTRODUCTION

The study of public policy is a very complex topic, and any attempt to force
policy into any narrow theoretical frame should be considered with some skepticism. On
the one hand, there are some real virtues for policy as an area of inquiry for the social
sciences, given that it is amenable to so many different perspectives. On the other hand,
however, this complexity requires bringing together a wide range of theoretical and
analytical perspectives to gain any sort of understanding of what is happening in any
policy area. Both academic disciplines and substantive policy concerns tend to narrow the
vision and to limit the ability of analysts to understand the underlying complexity of most
policies. (Handbook of Public Policy and Administration)

PUBLIC POLICY: SCOPE AND MEANING

Public Policy refers to the purposed course of action pursued by actors to realize
specific goals within an environmental context where obstacles and opportunities co-
exist. (Fredrich, 1969)
Another view of public policy considers the actions of government and the
intentions that determine those actions. It is the outcome of competitive interactions to
influence government to perform particular forms of political action. Public policy
consists of political decisions regarding the implementation of programs to achieve
societal goals.
Public policy is whatever government chooses to do or not to do. It is the sum of
activities taken by the government whether acting directly or through agents with
consequences on the lives of the citizens. Public policy can be influenced by key
stakeholders including the private sector and civil society. It addresses social needs and
wants through the exercise of governmental capacity. (Dye, 1992)
Public policy, also commonly referred to as domestic policy, is a system of laws
and regulations that reflect the actions of the government. It is the collective attitude,
ideas, and opinions of the citizens of the country and individual states, and it influences
the enactment and interpretation of legislation. Public policy reflects the course of action
taken by the government to address the needs of society and solve its problems,
encompassing governance and administration and public finance. It also reflects the
inaction of the government in areas that the government refuses to regulate or govern.
Essentially, it is what the government does and does not do in the areas of public health,
safety and welfare.
Marshal Edward and Gladys Ogden Dimock, in their book Public Administration,
defined policy as a choice of a course of action, actual or perceived. It is more
comprehensive than a decision because it provides the framework within which particular
and specific decisions are made. In certain ways, it is an aggregation of particular
decisions, a cumulative result of incremental choices and actions. It may refer to a
program of goal values and the accompanying practices that help attain the goal values.
Public policy is a composite of decisions that government makes and programs it
embarks upon or implements to achieve goals. As a definite course of action taken from
among a number of alternatives, the choice considers situational factors and
organizational givens. There is always a purposive rationale for a policy and in the
process of implementation, it may have to look into certain environmental constraints and
utilize opportunities that are offered to achieve what it hopes to accomplish. The making
of policy is never solely based upon one specific context or framework.
Policy is not administration. The former implies a process of formulating and
promulgating a program based on a set of principles; the latter refers to the
implementation of the program. The two are not realistically separable—the former is the
basis for choosing the mechanism for implementation. Democratic management
prescribes that policies be made only after government has consulted the different sectors
of society. Policy-making lies within the executive and legislative domain of public
affairs expressed through laws and implemented by administrative agencies of the
executive branch. Economic and financial advisers and other technocrats do the planning
for government but it is the political leaders who actualize the plans. This is precisely the
reason why planners and political leaders need to coordinate efforts so that specific target
groups and the whole of society will benefit from such policies.
Public policy may have either positive or negative effects. Some form of overt
governmental action may deal with a problem on which action is demanded (positive), or
public officials may decide to do nothing on some matter where governmental
involvement is sought (negative). Inaction becomes a public policy when officials decline
to act on a problem.
Public policy is derived from the values, morals, and principles of citizens. Public
policy law is how the legislature and courts act in what they believe to be the best
interests of citizens and the general public. While public policy laws are written and
enacted by Congress and state legislatures, public policy can also be implied and vary
within the federal, state and municipal levels of government. Public policy changes and
fluctuates frequently because it is rooted in the values that tie society together, and those
values vary in cultures and changes overtime.
Accordingly, policy analysis is used to formulate public policy and to evaluate its
effectiveness. Public policy laws are most effective when they reflect the most generally
values and beliefs of society.

THE POLICY PROCESS

According to Paul A. Sabatier (1999,p.3) the public policy making process “…
includes the manner in which problems get conceptualized and brought to the
government for solution; governmental institutions, formulate alternatives and select
policy solutions; and those solutions get implemented, evaluated and revised.”
If the knowledge utilization literature is not well linked to the literature of
political science, political scientists on their past have not shown much interest in the role
of technical information in policy formation, preferring to focus on such things as the
individual interests and values of policy actors; the institutional rules and procedures that
may structure the policy process; the broader socioeconomic environments in which
political institutions operate; and the tendency for people concerned with a specific policy
issue (both inside and outside of government) to form a relatively autonomous networks
or subsystems (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993).
When political scientists have looked at the role of information in the policy
process, they have typically seen it simply as a resource to be used in advancing or
justifying individual or factional interests (Margolis, 1974; Wildavsky and Tenenbaum,
1981). This tendency, a disciplinary bias perhaps, means that much of the literature
passes over, or assumes away, many issues of central importance to us. Yet the political
science literature does offer models of the policy process that we can put to our own uses.

POLICY STAGES
The traditional textbook approach to the study of public policy separates policy
making into its component steps and analyzes each in turn. Though the basic concepts
and metaphors of this stages model are now widely diffused throughout the policy
literature, they derive originally from the early works of Harold Lasswell (1951). In both
the original and the various modified versions of the stages model, the policy process is
broken down into analytic units—activities—that are treated as temporally and
functionally distinct. These include:
1. The identification of policy problems, through demands for governmental
action
This stage concerns those problems among many that receive the serious attention of
public officials. Each policy problem must compete for official attention because
legislators and executives have limited time and resources. Decisions to consider some
problems mean that other will not be taken up. The demands that policy makers appear to
be acting on, constitute policy agenda. But is should be distinguished from the term
political priorities which designates the ranking of agenda.
To achieve agenda status, a public problem must be converted into an issue, or a
matter requiring government attention. An issue arises when a public with problem seeks
or demands governmental action and there is public disagreement over the best solution
to a problem.
2. Agenda setting, or focusing the attention of public officials on specific public
problems
John Kingdon (1995) holds that agenda setting can be viewed as compromising three
mostly independent streams of activity (problems, proposals, and politics), which
converge into a policy window and permitting a policy agenda.
The problem stream consists of matters on which policy players, either inside or
outside of the government, would like to secure action. The policy proposal stream
comprises possible solutions for problems. Lastly, the politics stream includes such items
as election results, changes in presidential administration, public opinion, etc.
Occasionally these streams converge and for a short time, policy window is open—an
opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their pet solutions, or to push to their
special problems.
Agenda building is a competitive process; a number of factors can determine whether
an issue gets an agenda, including how the problem issue is defined. At any given time,
many problems and issues will be competing for the attention of public official. Only a
portion of these problems will succeed in securing agenda status because officials lack
time, resources, interest, and information.
The denial of an agenda happens because of the following reasons: denial that a
problem exists; arguing that a certain problem does not require governmental action;
fears about the societal consequence of a proposed policy; argument that a problem can
be adequately treated by non-governmental means; further study the problem; and lastly
recourse may be directed to electoral activity. Sometimes, agenda setting leads to non-
decisions (Bacharach and Baratz, 1970).

STREAMS OF POLICY MAKING (Kingdon)

POLICY STREAM
Problem
Stream

POLICY STREAM

POLICY WINDOW
 3. The formulation of policy proposals, their initiation and development, by
policy-planning organizations, interest groups, the executive or legislative branches
of government
This pertains to the development of pertinent and acceptable proposed courses of
action for dealing with public problem. The writing of laws and rules has to be done
skillfully because, as soon as these laws or rules go into effect, people will begin looking
for loopholes or trying to bend the meaning of language. Clarity in phrasing and intent
also may help protect laws and rules against unfavorable judicial interpretations and
provide clear guidance to those assigned of implementation.
Policy formulation is also termed as policy design. It is the process by which policies
are designed, both through technical analysis and then political process to achieve a
particular goal.
The table adopted from Birkland (2001) summarizes the elements of policy design.

Elements Questions to ask

The goals of the policy
The causal model
The tools of the policy
The targets of the policy
The implementation of
policy
What are the goals of the policy? To eliminate the problem? To alleviate
a problem but not entirely eliminate it? To keep a problem from getting
worse?
What is the causal model? Do we know that if we do X, Y will result?
How de we know this? If we do not know, how can we find out?
What tools or instruments will be used to put the policy into effect? Will
they rely on incentives, persuasion, or information? Capacity building?
Whose behavior is supposed to change? Are there direct and indirect
targets? Are design choices predicted on our social construction of the
target population?
the How will the program be implemented? Who will lay-out the
implementation system? Willa top-down or bottom-up design be
selected? Why?

4. The adoption and legitimation of policies through the political actions of

government, interest groups, political parties
This focuses on the development of support for specific proposal so that policy can be
legitimized and authorized. A policy decision involves action by some official, person or
body to adopt, modify, or reject a preferred policy alternative. What is typically involved
at the policy adoption stage is not selection from among a number of full-blown policy
alternatives but rather action on a preferred policy alternative for which the proponents of
action think they can win approval, even though it does not provide all they might like.
 Making a choice among policy alternatives leads to discussion of how government
officials make decisions. The approaches to decision-making emphasize the procedure
and intellectual activities involved in making a decision. The rational-comprehensive
theory draws considerably from the economist’s point of view of how a rational person
would make decisions—utility maximizing. The incremental theory suggests that
decision-making is the art of mudding through. Considering that information, time and
resources are insufficient at times; decision-making should be pragmatic and
incrementally done. Lastly, the multiple advocacy theory rests on the premise that a
competition of ideas and viewpoints is the best method of developing—a multi-
stakeholder approach. It accepts the fact that in large, complex organizations there will
inevitably be conflicts and disagreements over policy.
Public officials especially policy makers are constrained by decision criteria in
making a policy decision. The criteria include the consideration into organizational
values, professional values, personal values, policy values and ideological values.
Decision-makers are also compelled by a number of factors. Political party affiliation,
the interest of the constituency, public opinion, and decision rules affect the nature and
process of decision-making with regard to policy decision.
Decision styles vary according to the need of support to pass a bill into a law.
Bargaining in the form of logrolling, side payments and compromise are not uncommon
in legislatures. Decision-makers can mobilize support to a policy by utilizing persuasion
and command among members of congress. Perhaps these decision-making styles are
best reflected in how majority building in Congress is done.
5. The implementation of policies through bureaucracies, public expenditures,
and the activities of executive agencies
It denotes the application of the policy by the government’s administrative
machinery. Policy outputs are generated through policy implementation. The culmination
of any policy making process is in the policy implementation or policy administration
stage, however, the policy process do not end with implementation. Agencies (mostly
coming from the executive) are tasked to realize the conception and principles of policies
formulated and adopted. Compliance of citizens to policies and enforcement of particular
provisions of the policies is mostly in the domain, as what happens after a bill becomes a
law. It consists of those players, organizations, procedures, techniques and target groups
that are involved in carrying the policy (Hill and Hupe, 2002).
Aside from the executive agencies, other actors are also involved in policy
implementation—directly or indirectly. The legislature is interested in policy
implementation through approval of executive appointments, congressional veto and
caseworks. The courts are involved in implementation significantly in dealing with
crimes, interpretation of statutes and administrative rules and decisions in cases brought
before them. Civil society—interest groups can influence policy implementation by
directly participating in the implementation process (State-civil society projects) or by
acting as a watchdog (make them accountable) to government agencies to ensure the
proper implementation of a policy.
Executive departments, independent regulatory commissions or plural headed
agencies, government corporations and independent agencies are the most common
implementing arm of public policy. How effectively the agency carries on its legal
mandate and what it actually does or does not accomplish will be substantially affected
by the amount of cooperation and political support it can muster from other societal
actors. The rules of the administration, the chief executive, the congressional system of
supervision, the courts, other administrative agencies, civil society, political parties,
communications media and the private sector are all actors that can affect the behavior of
agencies implementing public policies.
The control techniques authorized for their implementation an important component
of public policies. Compliance and noncompliance to policies are usually determined by
how agencies can effectively implement control techniques may it be coercive and non-
coercive.
Non-coercive includes declaration of policy; appeals for voluntary cooperation;
warning; mediations and conciliation; and education and information dissemination
programs.
Compliance and regulatory measures can take the form of inspections; license;
loans; subsidies, and benefits; contract; general expenditure; market and proprietary
operations; taxation; directive power; services; informal procedures; and sanctions.
 6. The evaluation of a policy’s programmatic implementation and impact
It refers to efforts to determine whether the policy was effective why or why not? The
outcome of policy and its impact on the problem that it should address is emphasized in
policy monitoring and evaluation. Policy outcomes are measured and analyzed in policy
evaluation.
Evaluation encompasses the estimation, assessment or appraisal of a policy, including
its content, implementation, goal attainment, and other effects. It may also try to identify
factors that contribute to success and failure of a policy. Policy outcome and impact is
being studied.
The impact of a policy may have several dimensions, all of which should be taken
into account either in the conduct of a formal evaluation or in the course of an informal
appraisal of the policy (Dye, 1992). The following are:
a. Policies affecting the public problem at which they are directed and the people
involved
b. Policies may affect situations or groups other than those at which they are
directed (externalities)
c. Policies have consequences for future as well as current conditions;
d. Just as policies have positive effects or benefits, they also entail costs;
e. The effects of policies and programs may be either material or symbolic
Most of the policy evaluation and monitoring is performed by civil society and the
private sector. Media and the academe also perform monitoring and evaluation of policies
implemented by the government.
Formal monitoring and evaluation of public policies are facilitated through
mechanisms such as Congressional oversights, general audit or accounting office, the
formation of presidential commissions, and administrative agencies perform self-
monitoring and evaluation.
Problems in policy monitoring and evaluation become difficult because of uncertainly
over policy goals; difficulty in determining policy causality; diffused policy impact;
difficulties in data acquisition; official resistance; limited time and resources; and lacking
influence in evaluation.
 Policy Process
stage Element Actor (according to extent of
role in the policy process
1. Agenda Setting Policy Inputs Civil Society, Private Sector,
Legislature, Executive
2. Policy Formulation Process Legislature, Executive, Civil
Society, Private Sector
3. Policy Adoption Process Legislature, Executive,
Judiciary, Civil Society,
Private Sector
4. Policy Implementation Policy Output Administrative Agencies,
Executive, Civil Society,
Private Sector, Legislature,
Courts
5. Policy Monitoring and Policy Outcomes/Impact Legislature, Civil Society,
Evaluation Private Sector, Administrative
Agencies, Executive, Courts

Legislature
The legislature body is engaged in the central task of lawmaking and policy
formulation. It is important in almost all stages of the policy process—from agenda
setting to policy evaluation. However, it cannot be assumed that a legislature simply has
the formal designation to make laws, is one, independent, exclusive entity with regard to
policy making. Bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolution, and amendments are
outputs expected from Congress.
The committee structure helps divide the task in Congress so that each member
need not study every bill that is introduced. Organizationally, the committee helps
Congress prioritize the legislation that will be addressed. The legislature does more than
the role of introducing bills and making laws; it also monitors and evaluate laws passed
through casework and oversight activities.

Executive
The executive branch through its highest official—the President—plays a key role
in policy making. Any form of administration or regime sets out strategic plans and
programs usually at the national level. The executive lobbies these programs/plans
through a State of a Nation address. The president wields her power to be able to
mobilize support for priority projects that needs legislation. Priority plans are often
packaged in macro-programs such as the Medium Term Development plans—indicating
the goals and strategies of the administration. This makes the executive an integral part in
the policy process aside from the power of formulating executive orders, letter of
instruction and other policy instruments.

Bureaucracy
The bureaucracy is engage in the policy process mostly in the policy
implementation stage. Administrative agencies serve as the implementing arm in the
public policy process. Citizen’s social action and behavior is affected by public policies
that will be enforced by governmental agencies. Public policy reiterates how government
entities affect societies and vice versa. Implementing agencies are held accountable with
regard to enforcement of politics and statutes.

Judiciary
The court system is a key aspect of the policy process. Decisions made by the
judiciary regarding interpretation of a policy can be basis for future policy proposals. The
judiciary takes part in the policy as how it is meant to be enforced. Moreover, questions
and issues regarding the procedures and content of policy are resolved in the arena of the
judiciary.

Civil Society
Civil society groups take an important part in policy making. Groups can perform
an interest-articulation function; that is they can express demands and present alternatives
for policy action. Non-governmental organizations, people’s organization—lumped as
civil society—can also supply public officials with much information, technical and other
forms of support, and perhaps not available from other sources about the nature and
possible consequences of policy proposals. Interest groups, organizations such as those
representing organized labor, business and agriculture, are a major source of demands for
public policy. Interest groups want to influence policy on a specific subject. Groups often
have conflicting desires on a policy issue, public officials confront the need to choose
among, or reconcile, conflicting demands. Groups that are well organized and active are
likely to fare better.
Public interest groups also are important players in the policy process. They
represent interested that in their absence would go un-represented such as consumers,
environmentalists or good governance advocates. Interest groups also bring pressure to
formal policy makers such as legislators through lobbying of certain policy proposals.

Political Parties
Aside from winning in political contestation; political parties often perform the
function of interest aggregation. They seek to convert the particular demands of interest
groups onto general policy alternative. Parties also have great influence on segment of
society—often defining their political support. In modern political systems, parties have
various stances on several policy issues. The ideological stances are basis for the
feasibility of a certain policy proposal.

Academics
“Think tanks”, research organizations, “the academe” are important players in the
policy process. Their studies and reports provide basic information and data on policy
issues, develop alternatives and proposals for handling problems, and evaluate the
effectiveness and consequences of public policy.

Media
Newspapers, news magazines, radio, television and the Internet participate in
policy-making as suppliers and transmitters of information; as agenda setters in that they
help determine what people think about; and, whether intentionally otherwise, shapers of
attitudes. Support of citizens for a particular policy proposal necessitates effective
information campaign.

LEVELS OF POLICY-MAKING
 There is a policy making at different levels of the governmental structure, each
level having a different kind of output, from the general policy decided at the top level of
the administrative hierarchy to the more particular and specific as one move down the
lower levels. Thus broad policies of economic development pronounced by the Chief
Executive may make for sub-policies like countryside development or rural electrification
as geographic variations and resources justify. It is possible that lower level executives
formulate sub-policies not in keeping with the broad national perspective especially in the
absence of clear-cut guidelines and when too wide latitude of discretion is allowed to
local or lower executives.
A study of the activities of government discloses four levels of policy.

Political Policy
This is also known as general policy. It is the policy of the party in power
presumably approved by the electorate. Ideally, if the competing political parties have
specific and differentiated platforms, the platform of the winning party becomes the
political policy.

Executive Policy
This is the policy of the executive branch which is based upon the general policy.
This could be a compromise of different interpretations of general policy by cabinet
members, government experts and technocrats, representatives of interest groups
constituted as advisory councils like the National Security Council for security affairs,
and the National Economic Council for economic, fiscal and monetary affairs. Since
executive policy may require amendment of existing law, it is this level that legislative
proposals are recommended to Congress. Executive-legislative rapport is important at
this point. Responsibility for the implementation of certain aspects of executive policy is
assigned to an appropriate department secretary, a board or a committee which the
executive chooses to create for this purpose.
 REFERENCES
Anderson, James
1975, “Public Policy making”. In Paul A. Sabatier.ed., Theories of the Policy
Process. Westview Press. Colorado
Bacharach and Baratz
1970. Power and Poverty. Oxford University Press: New York.
Birkland, Thomas
2001. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts and Models of
Public Policy-Making. M.E. Sharpe: New York
Brewer Gary and Peter de Leon
“The Foundation of Policy Analysis.” In Paul A. Sabatier, ed., Theories of the
Policy Process, Westview Press: Colorado
Caplan, Nathan et al.
1975. The Uses of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National
Level. Ann Arbor: Institute of Social Research
Craig, John
1990. Comparative African Experiences in Implementing Educational Policies.
World Bank Discussion paper No. 83. Africa Technical Department Series.
Dery, David
1990. Data and Policy Change: The Fragility of Data in the Policy Context.
Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston
Dunn, William
1980. The Two-Communities Metaphor and Models of Knowledge Use.
Knowledge 2 (June):pp.515-536
Dye, Thomas R.
1992. Understanding Public Policy. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall
Feldman, Martha S. and James G. March
1981. Information as Signal and Symbol, “Administrative Science Quarterly, 26:
pp. 171-186
Fredrich, Carl J.
1969. Man and His Government. Mc Graw Hill: New York
Grindle, Merilee S., and John W. Thomas
1991. Public Choices and Policy Change” The Political Economy of Reform in
Developing Countries. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore
Hill, Michael and Hupe, Peter
2002. Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice. Sage
Publications: London
Jenkins-Smith, Hank and David Weimer
1985. Analysis as Retrogade Action. Public Administration Review 45 (July): pp.
485-494
Kingdon, John
1995. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies, Harper Collins: New York
1984. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan
Lasswell, Harold
1951. “The Policy Orientation”. In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell, eds. The Policy
Sciences. Stanford University Press: Stanford
Lindblom, Charles E. and Edward J. Woodhouse
1992. The Policy-Making Process. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs: prentice-Hall
Margolis, Howard
1974. Technical Advice on Policy Issues. Sage: Beverly Hills
Marshal Edward Dimock and Gladys Ogden Dimock
Public Administration
Meier, Gerald
1991. “Policy Lessons and Policy Formulation.” In Politics and Policy Making in
Developing Countries. International Center for Economic Growth Press pp. 3-12:
San Francisco
Meltsner, Arnold
1976. Policy Analysis in the Bureaucracy, University of California Press: Berkley
Nelson, Robert M.
1987. “The Economics Profession and the Making of Public Policy”. Journal
Economic Literature 25 (March):pp. 42-84
Rein, Martin and Sheldon White
1977. “Policy Research: Belief and Doubt.” Policy Analysis. Volume 3, Spring.
pp.239-271
Sabatier, Paul A.
1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press: Colorado
Stone, Deborah A.
1989. Casual Stories and the Formation of Policy Agenda. Political Science
Quarterly. Volume 104, pp. 281-300
Webber, David
1983 “Obstacles to the Utilization of Systematic Policy Analysis.” Knowledge 4
(June),pp. 534-560
Weiss, Carol H. and M.J Bucuvalas
1980. Social Science Research and Decision-Making. Columbia University Press:
New York
Wildavsky, Aron and Ellen Tenenbaum
1981. The Politics of Mistrust. Sage: Beverly Hills

2002. Lt. Antonio F. Trillanes IV PN

2001. Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s State of the Nation Address
2001. The Medium Term Philippine Development Plan 2001-2004. NEDA: Pasig
City
1995. 60 Years of Development Planning in the Philippines: A Commemorative
Brochure. NEDA: Pasig City
1986. Executive Order No. 230, “Recognizing the National Economic Decelopment
Authority. Malacanang Palace: Manila