Introduction
The process of implementing and evaluating public policies is best understood by considering the process of making public policies as an operation that has several sub-processes merged together (Ridde 2009, p.939).
A policy is a combination of aims and specified activities that can help end a certain problem once implemented (Lyhne 2011, p.321). Alternatively, Ridde (2009) defines a policy as the things/actions that the government has deemed right and or wrong for people (p.939).
In case the government makes a decision to do a particular thing that is of community interest without success in the achievement of the desired outputs, policy analysts make an incredible effort to unveil the reasons for the failure of the policy.
One approach for doing this is to scrutinise various deficiencies in the implementation phase (Ridde 2009, p.939) and the policy formulation phase.
In case deficiencies are found in each phase, it means that the policymaking process negated some vital aspects that would ensure that every step taken in the formulation and implementation phases is consistent with the desired final goal and objective of the policy.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce policy evaluation as an ample component for inclusion in the policy formulation and implementation phases for making public policy.
Failure to include it in both phases makes it difficult for the people formulating and implementing the policy to detect certain deficiencies. Such deficiencies may truncate into the failure of the policy to deliver the anticipated outcomes upon full implementation.
This paper is divided into two main sections. A description of the implementation and evaluation components of the public policymaking process as separate entities is presented first.
This step is then followed by the analysis section, which discusses the policymaking process as being composed of policy implementation and evaluation phases running simultaneously.
The advantage of integrating the implementation and evaluation phases for making public policies will finally be addressed. In conclusion, the paper will hold that the implementation of public policy cannot be separated from its formulation or its evaluation.
Description
Implementation of Public Policies
Once policies are formulated, the next phase involves their implementation. Public policy implementation refers to the exercising of a specific policy decision as directed by the law, court, or any administratorâs prescriptions (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1983, p.149).
It takes two paradigms, bottom-up and top-down. The bottom-up approach is initiated by singling out the chain of people who take part in offering any service to each or all local areas by interviewing them on their ambitions, schemes, actions, and contacts (Sabatier 1986, p.32).
The bottom-up approach holds that public policy implementation process is inseparable from the formulation phase (Matland 1995, p.147). The roles of administrators and politicians are also considered as critical in the success of the formulation and implementation of the policies from the paradigms of the bottom-up approach.
Contacts are then deployed to develop various networks aimed at aiding in the identification of national actors, local, and even regional actors who are crucial for financing, planning, and execution of various necessary nongovernmental and or governmental programs.
The bottom creates the need for a given policy. The top then responds by creating the policy. In this context, Sabatier (1986) maintains that this approach is unidirectional in that the policymaking process starts from the bottom to top (p.35).
The top-down approach in implementing public policies is bureaucratic. It is initiated by a policy decision that majors on the degree to which its goals and aims have been achieved in a given period and the reason behind the elapsed time (Sabatier 1986, p.32).
Successful top-down policy implementation process requires factoring issues like the degree of the implementation process to comply with causal theory and the consistency of the process with the objectives of the policy. This process is unidirectional (Sabatier 1986, p.51) since it does not have feedback loops.
The process also needs to be lawfully integrated to heighten abidance by the enforcing functionaries and the intended groups (Sabatier 1986, p.25).
Commitment coupled with the capacity of the implementation official to have high skills in the field whose policy is being implemented is a magnificent success factor for this approach of public policy implementation.
The approach needs to factor the variations in socio-economic circumstances, which do not considerably counteract political accompaniment or causative hypothesis (Sabatier 1986, p.25).
Lastly, for the purposes of seeking political support in the process of implementation of public policies from the paradigms of top-down implementation approach, the process needs to be consistent with concerns of various support groups and sovereigns (May & Wintner 2007, p.455).
The approach suggests that policy formulation and implementation can be separated into two different entities. The âtopâ is charged with the noble role of making the policy while the âbottomâ is in charge of implementation.
This means that the flow of voice of command is in a single direction (Sabatier 1986, p.51): from top to down in the hierarchical structure.
Scholars who support the top-down approach and those who are opposed to it fail to contend for the most appropriate policy implementation approach that would ensure that all the concerns of the target groups are fully addressed by the policy being implemented.
For instance, the proponents of the bottom-up propose, âstreet bureaucrats are central to successful implementation and the top downers ignored them at their perilâ (DelLeon & Denver 2002, p.470).
The point is that successful implementation takes place when all persons who are directly impacted by the policy are proactively involved in the planning and execution of the policies.
With the Sabatierâs criticism that both top-down and bottom-up process is unidirectional (1986, p.79), the most effective approach is the one that fosters interactions of both the top and the bottom through feedback loops.
Proponents of the bottom-up approach of public policy implementation process assert they are able to capture a myriad of intricacies that may impede the success of policy implementations through the process (Milward 1980, p.247).
With full realisation of the one-way nature of both top-down and bottom-up, this case calls for the incorporation of perspectives of policy evaluation during the policy formulation and implementation process (Barzelay & Jacobsen 2009, p.320).
Evaluation of Public Policies
The evaluation of public policies is crucial in aiding to reflect on the impacts of the developed policy, both the intended and the unintended ones. Technically, Barry and Rae (1975) define the evaluation of policies as the allotting of rates to things by approximately talking to find out whether they are beneficial or harmful (p.340).
With regard to Cope and Goodship (1999), the objective of evaluating polices is to inform the policy makers on the progress of the implementation process of the policies showing how the policies measure up to the desired outcomes (p.7).
Therefore, where it is realised that the policies may not yield the desired outcomes upon full implementation, evaluation is significant in helping to devise new policies through correction of erroneous elements of the policy under implementation (Rist 1995, p.112).
On the other hand, where a policy is meeting the desired outcomes, evaluation is vital since it helps in legitimisation of the existing policy. For instance, Howlett et al. view policy evaluation as the analytical field for people who see evaluation as a mere proficient practice in deciding the victory or losing of administrationâs attempts to handle policy issues (2009, p.178).
As a whole, the evaluation process is an element of the policy learning process. It is a scientific activity (Rist 1995, p.112). Some scholars in the discipline of public policy administration hold that public policy evaluation is a distinctive element in the policymaking process.
The rise of the policymaking process that is evidence-based suggests that the evaluation of the policy implementation process is a positivistic exercise. Under such an approach, policy evaluation has the aim of determining the quality, costs, policy effectiveness, impacts, and goal attainment (Marsh & McConnell 2010, p.59).
Analysis
The discussions of the description section present the evaluation phase in the process of making public policies as a separate entity from the formulation and implementation phases.
Hogwood presents it as the process of âdetermining the characteristics of the issue being analysed, the organisational, and political setting of the issue, with the actual mechanics of particular techniques being secondary and consequentialâ (1884, p.263).
In this section, policy analysis is presented as an essential phase that needs to be incorporated and run simultaneously with both the formulation and the implementation phases.
Running the Evaluation Phase Simultaneously with Formulation and Implementation Phases
Policies are implemented by formally adopting rules and laws or regulations prescribing the operation of the policies. According to May and Wintner (2007), a bureaucratic action takes a central position in ensuring full operation of the policy (p.462).
For the policy to deliver a public good, it is necessary that some form of evaluation be done regardless of whether the implementation process assumes the top-down approach or the bottom-up approach.
This step needs to be done during the formulation and the implementation phases, as well as after completion of each of the phases.
Evaluation at Policy Formulation Phase
Running the evaluation phase simultaneously with the formulation phase is plausible in ensuring that the policy will not have formulation errors that would then be replicated in the implementation stage.
Policies are made consistent with the prevailing political influences coupled with the demand from the stakeholders prompting the necessity of such a policy (Edward 1992 p.51).
This way, it is possible to minimise replication of certain erroneous aspects of the policy that have the overall influence of impeding the capacity of the policy to deliver what it was meant to achieve.
Incorporating the evaluation stage at the policy formulation part aids in capturing all the government-oriented groups and policy activists who determine the shape of a certain public policy (May & Wintner 2007, p.463). Policymaking involves the substantive expenditure of the public scarce and constrained resources.
Exempting the evaluation at the formulation phase would mean reduced surveillance of risks that would lead to the implementation of policies that only serve the interests of the current political regime, later to be found inappropriate in the forthcoming regimes coupled with newly emerged interest groupsâ demands.
The policy-formulating agents are more often researchers working for a change. According to Palumbo (1987), these people are keen on what is included in the formulation process (p.29). They also take part in its implementation.
This implies that it is practically inappropriate to deter the policy-formulating agents from scrutinising the impacts of the formulated policies (evaluation) on the attainment of the desired goals, both in short-term and in the long term.
The contribution of political influence in the formulation of the policies cannot be negated in the evaluation phase because conducting the evaluation independently can threaten both program managers and politicians (Pollitt 1999, p.79).
From this point of view, measurement, description, responsive, and judgments, as some of the techniques of evaluating the degree of the public policies at the formulation stage to result to the attainment of the intended goals, objectives, and aims are crucial for incorporation at the formulation phase.
This attempt helps in the determination of policies that would have the overall impact of spending the scarce public resources well right at the formulation stage. The funds that could have been wasted in the unsuccessful implementation phase due to errors related to poor policy formulation can be channeled into the revision of the policies.
Once a policy is evaluated at the formulation phase, the subsequent process of implementation has high probabilities that it cannot trace its intricacies to the formulation phase.
The challenge that may arise can only result from the failure of the implementing agents to implement the policy in a manner that is consistent with the anticipations of the recipients (Whitford 2007, p.18).
At the formulation phase, evaluation involves describing whether the formulated policies, which are due for implementation, are compliant with the goals and objectives of the policies.
Evaluation at Policy Implementation Phase
The main actor in the policy implementation process is the bureaucratic system of administration. Such a system is constructed on the foundation of compliance.
Description of the implementation agency is also crucial to help in determining the likely impacts of the implementing agency on the success of enforcement of the rules, laws, and regulations prescribed by the policy without stakes.
Most of the public policies are developed in a manner such that their implementation is dependent on the enforcing agents to prescribe either compliance or otherwise face certain legal consequences.
According to May and Wintner (2007), the bureaucracy is given a central role to play in the implementation stage since it has the ability to understand and translate the real aim, methodology, and area of coverage of any policy (p.465).
This means that the bureaucracy has capabilities of redefining intents of actions of the policy under implementation to some degree. This molding process is the evaluation process of public policy at the implementation phase.
The chief goal of conducting an evaluation at the implementation phase rests on the need to monitor the bureaucratic implementing agents.
This step is necessary to mitigate risks of the implementing agent to redefine the details of the policy in a manner that would impair the adopted method of implementation that is defined in the policy formulation phase.
In the implementation phase, administrative agencies include courts and parliament (DelLeon & Denver 2002, p.483). These agencies have crucial responsibilities in determining what needs to be done and what should not be done when it comes to policy implementation (May & Wintner 2007, p.467).
The agencies come up either with proposed rules, interim rules, or even the final rules to guide the process of implementation of the policies. Evaluation is necessary to ensure compliance of the policy implementation with these rules.
It should be conducted in every step of the implementation process to ensure that the policy is directly congruent with the anticipated objectives and goals of the policy as spelled out in the evaluated formulation phase before the start of the next step of the implementation process.
Why Integrate Policy Formulation, Implementation, and Evaluation Phases?
The phases and steps of making policies are interrelated. The success of a phase and or step within a phase determines the success of the next phase or step. Evaluation is the tool for gauging and determining the extent of success of these phases and steps of the policy implementation.
Success in the implementation of public policy is a function of the success of the preceding phase. The success of this preceding phase (policy formulation) is dependent on the evaluation of the formulated policies.
This means that public policy cannot be implemented with high probabilities of its success in realising its objectives and goals if the process of evaluation is treated as distinct a phase.
Public policies may fail to achieve their intended outcomes because of various problems encountered in the implementation phase.
These problems include the existence of certain constraints, which are problematic to the implementing agencies while executing the implementation process, inadequate resources and time for implementation, incomplete agreement and understanding of policy goals, and resistance to commands given by the bureaucratic policy-implementing agents (Hogwood & Gunn 1984, p.75).
Other challenges include inadequate agencies for implementation of the policy and lack of clear and particular sequence for policy implementation.
Conclusion
Public policies are made in a number of processes, which can be treated as distinct entities. These entities or phases are different yet interdependent on each other. From this argument, the paper maintains that they cannot be executed differently as the top-down approach of policy implementation suggests.
Two important phases of the process of making public policies are policy formulation and policy implementation.
To comply with the need to have the two phases interlinked, there must be a linking phase, which is the evaluation phase that is proposed as an ample component for inclusion in the policy formulation and implementation phases for making public policy.
Evaluation of various steps within each phase and the entire phase helps in avoiding culmination and replication of various challenges that may impede the realisation of outcomes of the public policy under implementation.
When the evaluation forms an integral part of the implementation process to be conducted simultaneously with the implementation process, these challenges can be captured and corrective mechanism adopted.
Apart from ensuring that the formulation is successful in paving the way for the implementation phase, the paper considered evaluation as essential in merging these two phases in the effort to mitigate various challenges that may prevent attainment of the intended outcomes of the policy under implementation.
The paper discussed the top-down and bottom-up approach of policy implementation as the main theoretical constructs for the implementation of public policies. Through this discussion, treatment of evaluation as a separate entity often considered after implementation of the policy was identified as a major drawback of both approaches.
To provide a different approach for making public policies, the paper presented and discussed the roles of evaluation in the policy formulation phase and implementation phase. Therefore, it is held that the implementation of public policy cannot be separated from its formulation or its evaluation.
List of References
Barzelay, M & Jacobsen, A 2009, âTheorising Implementation of Public Management Policy Reforms: A Case Study of Strategic Planning and Programming in the European Commissionâ, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 22 no. 2, pp. 319â334.
Cope, S & Goodship, J 1999, âRegulating Collaborative Government: Towards Joined-Up Government?â, Public Policy and Administration, vol. 14 no. 2, pp. 3-16.
DelLeon, P & Denver, L 2002, âWhat Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approachâ, Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory, vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 467-492.
Edward, C 1992, Political Authority and Bureaucratic Power, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.
Hogwood, W & Gunn, L 1984, Policy Analysis of the Real World, Longman, New York.
Howlett, M et al. 2009, Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lyhne, I 2011, âBetween Policy-Making and Planning: SEA and Strategic Decision-Making in the Danish Energy Sectorâ, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, vol. 13 no. 3, pp. 319â341.
Marsh, D & McConnell, A 2010, âTowards a Framework for Establishing Policy Successâ, Public Administration, vol. 88 no. 2, pp. 57-69.
Matland, R 1995, âSynthesising the Implementation Literature: Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Implementationâ, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 5 no. 2, pp. 145-174.
May, J & Wintner, C 2007, âPoliticians Managers and Street Level Bureaucrats: Influences on Policy Implementationâ, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol 19 no. 3, pp. 453-476.
Mazmanian, D & Sabatier, P 1983, Implementation and Public Policy, Scott Foresman, Glenville.
Milward, B 1980, âPolicy Entrepreneurship and Bureaucratic Demand Creation.â In H Igram and D Mann (eds), Why Policies Succeed or Fail, Beverly Hills, California, Sage, pp. 255-277.
Palumbo, J (ed) 1987, The Politics of Program Evaluation, Pluto, London.
Pollitt, C 1999, âStunted by Stake Holder? Limits to Collaborative Evaluationâ, Public Policy and Administration, vol. 14 no. 2, pp. 77-90.
Ridde, V 2009, âPolicy Implementation In African States: An Extension of Kingdonâs Multiple-Streams Approachâ, Public Administration, vol. 87 no. 4, pp. 938-954.
Rist, C (ed) 1995, Policy Evaluation: Linking Theory to Practice, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.
Sabatier, P 1986, âTop-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesisâ, Journal of Public Policy, vol. 6 no. 1, pp. 21-48.
Whitford, B 2007, âDecentralised Policy Implementationâ, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 10 no. 1, pp. 17-30.