POLI 364: PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS IN GHANA DR. EVANS AGGREY-DARKOH COURSE OVERVIEW

Transcription

1 POLI 364: PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS IN GHANA DR. EVANS AGGREY-DARKOH COURSE OVERVIEW Welcome to the course: Public Policy Process in Ghana. It is a very important course and I am happy that you have signed up for it. Please note that policy studies often focus on how policies are made rather than on their content or their cause and consequences. The study of how policies are made generally considers a series of activities, or processes, that occur within the political system. The implication of this process model is that policy making occurs in identifiable stages and that each stage can be examined separately. Public policy process in Ghana like any other country is essentially a complex and multi-layered one. You need to know that policy process is essentially a political process. It is a complex political process in which there are many actors: politicians, pressure groups, civil servants, publicly employed professionals, and even people who see themselves as passive recipients of policy. In this course our concentration is on the how public policies are made in Ghana, the contributions of the various actors in the policy process and the factors that undermine the crafting of enduring public policies and programmes in Ghana. Public policies in a modern, complex society are indeed ubiquitous. They confer advantages and disadvantages, causes pleasure, irritation, and pain, and collectively have important consequences for our well-being and happiness. Specifically, the following topics will engage our attention. Unit 1: The Concept of Public Policy Unit 2: The Policy Process Unit 3: Constitutional Basis of Public Policies in Ghana Unit 4: The Civil Service and Public Policy Making in Ghana Unit 5: Actors in the Policy process in Ghana-participant in the process Unit 6: The Budgetary Process in Ghana Objectives At the end of the course, you should be able to: Explain public policy discuss the differences between policy, decision and programme Outline the public process in Ghana Examine the constitutional basis of public policies within the machinery of government Discuss the phenomenal role of the public bureaucracy in the formulation and implementation of public policies Identify and discuss the contributions of official and non-official actors to the policy making process Examine the budgetary process in Ghana 1

2 Unit 1: The Concept of Public Policy Introduction Welcome to unit 1 of this course: The Concept of Public Policy. In the course of our daily lives, people are affected, directly and indirectly, obviously and subtly, by an array of public policies. Take for instance, when a care is bought, the laws of Ghana requires that it is registered with the Driver and Licensing Authority. The Car is expected to have certain safety equipments, spare tyre, fire extinguisher, etc. State policy expects the car to have a valid insurance sticker, road worthy certificate and the driver is expected to have a valid driver s license. In this unit, I am going to introduce you to the concept of public policy, its varied definitions, characteristics, the reasons for studying public policy, questions in policy analysis, policy analysis and policy advocacy and the category of public policies in Ghana. Objectives At the end of this unit you are expected to: State and explain the various definitions of public policy Discuss the various characteristics public policies Outline the reasons for studying public policies Examine the key questions posed in policy analysis Outline the difference between policy analysis and policy advocacy Discuss the various category of public policies in Ghana Section 1: What is Public Policy? Introduction Welcome to section 1 of unit 1. The subject matter of public policy has been given varied interpretations. There is no universally acclaimed definition of what is meant by the term public policy. The field of public studies is filled different definitions of public policy. In this section, I am going to introduce you to a variety of definitions given to public policy. it is interesting to note that public policy is the course of action or inaction taken by a government in response to problems in a society. Objectives At the end of this section, you should be able to: State and explain Thomas Dye s definition of public policy Explain James Anderson s definition of public policy Discuss Yehezkel Dror s definition of public policy Discuss the other definitions of public policy. The definitions of Public Policy To explain how policy is made provides a good guide to how a political system operates as a whole. In other words, policy brings together different aspects of a political system and the 2

3 various political issues and concepts. To understand how policy is made in one country as opposed to another is to understand that country s specific political characteristics, including the interactions of its political system with other systems such as its social and economic environments. Policy also helps us to study the way in which these characteristics come together and are integrated through processes of decision-making and the implementation of policy. (Axford, Browning, Higgins and Rosamond, 2002:443). We talk of policy in general way. We hear people ask, why don t politicians do something about that problem? why did the government make that decision?, I am going to stop the government doing that. They are all referring to policy, whether it relates to how issues get put on the political agenda, how policy is formulated, who makes the key decisions and how they are implemented, or why some policies seem to fail and others evolve and are modified. Essentially, policy is about three processes: The intentions of political and other key actors, The way decisions or non-decision are made, The consequences of these decisions. You need know that in academic studies of policy, we offer definitions of public policy to understand the shape of the field we seek to study. For many people, defining public policy helps them define their own roles in policy making, as well as that of the organization they work for. There exist a plethora of definitions of public policy. You must however note that the difference in the definition is mater of semantics rather than substantive. Let us consider some of the definitions of public policy. The concept of policy is central to our understanding of the way we are governed. The impact of government on the welfare of the people is discussed as a social policy. Experts in climate or land use or air quality organize their knowledge as an agenda of concern for government as a contribution to the making of environmental policy. The term policy therefore implies something broader than simply what the government wants to do. It is important for you to know some of the key definitions of public policy. Thomas Dye s Definition of Public Policy Thomas Dye has defined public policy as whatever government chooses to do or not to do. It involves both actions and inactions of government. This definition appears very simple as it encapsulate every aspect of governmental behavior from purchasing or failing to purchase paper clips to waging or failing to wage nuclear war, and thus provides no means of separating the trivial from the significant aspects of government activities (Hewlett and Ramesh 1995:4). Governments do many things in the state. They regulate conflict within the society, they organize society to carry on conflict with other societies; they distribute a great variety of symbolic rewards and material services to members of the society, and they extract money from society, most often in the form of taxes. Thus, public policies regulate behavior, organize bureaucracies, and distribute benefits etc (Thomas R. Dye 1987: 2). Public policy involves both action and inaction. Inaction becomes a policy when officials decline to act on a problem. That is, when they decide an issue negatively. This choice differs from non-action on a matter that has not become a public issue, has not been brought to official attention, and has not been considered or debated. 3

4 Two basic merits of Dye s definition have been identified. First, Dye specifies clearly that the agent of policy-making is government. This means that private business decisions, decisions by charitable organizations, interest groups, individuals or other social groups are not public policy. Second, Dye highlights the fact that public policies involve fundamental choice on the part of governments to do something or to do nothing. To Thomas Dye, public policy at it most simple is a choice made by government to undertake some course of action. The difficulty we have to contend with is the non-decision of government which is also characterized as public policy. That is the government decision to do nothing, or not to create a new policy, or simply to maintain the status quo. In each of the above options, there should be a deliberate decision to pursue a specific course of action. James E. Anderson s Definition of Public Policy According to James Anderson public policy is a relatively stable, purposive course of action or inaction followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern (Anderson 2011:6). Unlike Thomas Dye s definition, this definition focuses on what is actually done instead of what is only proposed or intended; differentiates a policy from a decision, which is essentially a specific choice among alternatives; and views policy as something that unfolds over time. To Anderson, public policies are developed by governmental bodies and officials. Note that non-governmental actors and factors may of course influence public policy development. There are several implications of this definition. First, the definition links policy to purposive or goal-oriented action rather than to random behavior or chance occurrences. Public policies in modern political systems do not just happen. They are instead designed to accomplish specified goals or produce definite results, although these are not always achieved. The goal of a policy may be loosely stated and imprecise in content, thus providing a general direction rather than precise targets for its implementation. Secondly, policies consist of courses or patterns of action followed over time by governmental officials rather than their separate, discrete decisions. Thirdly, public policies emerge in response to policy demands, or those claims for action or inaction on some public issue made by other actors-private citizens, group representative, or legislators and other public officials-upon government officials and agencies. Fourthly, policies involve what governments actually do, not merely what they intend to do or what officials say they are going to do. If legislature enacts a law requiring employers to pay no less than a stated minimum wage, but nothing is done to enforce the law, and subsequently little change occurs in economic behavior, it seems reasonable to contend that public policy actually takes the form of non-regulation of wages. Finally, public policy is based on law and is authoritative. Members of the society usually accept as legitimate the facts that taxes must be paid, import controls must be obeyed, and highway speed limits must be complied with, unless one wants to run the risk of fines, jail sentences, or other legally imposed sanctions or disabilities. Thus public policy has authoritative, legally coercive quality that the policies of private organizations do no have (Anderson 2011:9). Yehezkel Dror s definition of Public Policy Perhaps the well known definition of public policy is the one offered by Yehezkel Dror. He defines public policy as a very complex and dynamic process whose various components make 4

5 different contributions to it, it designs major guidelines for action directed at the future mainly by governmental organs. These guidelines and policies formally aim at achieving what is in the public interest by the best possible means. It is a conscious goal-selecting process undertaken by governmental actors in the decision making systems which includes the identification of the means of achieving such goals. From the above definitions, it is worth emphasizing that public policy is very dynamic-it is a never ending process. Public policy may be considered as a policy developed and pursued under the authority of government. An important aspect of this process is that the decisions made must be in principle within the capabilities of the main actors to achieve. This definition is not restricted to actions only but includes inactions as well, that is, the decision not to do anything. Similarly, it is generally agreed that policy involves more than one decision. What this suggests is that public policy should not be conceived of as an isolated, single act, but as a dynamic social process which may be an aggregation of numerous smaller decisions which run over time and in which what is perceived as the final decision could mark not the end, but the beginning of a much wider processes of alternatives considerations. This fact partially explains the difficulty of finding a single, neat phrase to define policy. The differing definitions only indicate that studying public policy in a particular area is a very difficult task. It cannot be accomplished simply by going through the officials records of government decision-making found in such forms as laws, acts, regulations and promulgations (Anderson 2011:8). Fifthly, a public policy may be either positive or negative. Some form of overt governmental action may deal with a problem on which action is demanded (positive), or governmental officials may decide to do nothing on some matter on which government involvement was sought (negative). In other words, government can follow a policy of laissez-faire, or hands off, either generally or on some aspect of economic activity. Such inaction may have major consequences for a society or some groups. Key assumptions of Public Policy The idea of policy usually rests on three core assumptions about social order. These are instrumentality, hierarchy and coherence (Colebatch 2002: 8). The first assumption of policy is instrumentality- that organization in general and public organizations in particular, is to be understood as a device for the pursuit of particular purposes. We understand an organization be asking what are its objectives? and a successful organization is one which achieves its objectives. In this perspective, public organizations exist to achieve objectives in particular areas. These objectives may be fairly broadly stated (youth employment), or be more specific (the work relevance of the Senior High School curriculum).they may change over time and place, and the goals may be more or less clearly stated, but policy is to be understood in terms of objectives and the way to achieve them. The second assumption is hierarchy: that the governing flows from people at the top giving instructions. This is an important part of the validation of organizational activity: that it is seen as flowing from the decisions of leaders with authority. What the organization does is explained with reference back to visible choices of these leaders. Policy is seen as an authoritative determination of what will be done in some particular area, so that the various participants do not 5

6 each go their own way, whether it is the different offices of one organization or different organizations within the broad framework of government. So the policy process is concerned with securing the endorsement of a single course of action. This is seen as being done by the government or the authority of the state, but in each case, there is a sense of a central nervous system of public authority, which decides on a course of action and communicates it down the line. The third assumption of a policy is coherence. This is the assumption that all the bits of the action fit together and form part of an organized whole, a single system, policy in this context, has to do with how this system is or should be steered. This is an assumption which rests on its inherent value more than on the experience of the participants, for whom coherence is not so much one of the attributes of policy as one of the central problems. Activity 1.1 State and explain Thomas Dye s definition of public policy.. Explain relevance of Y. Dror s definition of public policy.. Identify and explain the main assumptions of a policy in a state Summary I am happy that you have successfully completed section one of unit 1. In this section I have introduced you to three important definitions of public policy. You have learnt that public policies are developed by governmental bodies and officials. You have noted that public policy involves both action and inaction of government and that it is goal oriented. The section also dealt with the key assumptions of policy which are instrumentality, hierarchy and coherence. Now let us turn to the characteristic of public policies. 6

7 Section 2: characteristics of Public policy Introduction Welcome to section 2 of unit 1: Characteristics of Public Policy. In section 1, you were introduced to the varied definitions of public policy. Effort was also made to unpack the definitions and explain their ramifications. In this section, I want you to fully understand the key peculiarities of public policy so that you can differentiate it from the policy of an individual or a group. The section also explains the differences between a decision, policy and a programme. Objectives At the end of this section, you are expected to: Explain the relevance of delineating the core boundaries of public policy Identify and explain the main features of public policy Differentiate between a policy, decision and a programme Yehezkel Dror in his book, Public Policy Making Re-examined has identified 11 characteristics of public policy as follows: First, public policy is very complex because it involves many components who are interconnected by communication and feedback loops and which interact in different ways. Some parts of the process are explicit and directly observable, but many others proceed by hidden channels that the actors themselves are often only partly aware of and that are very difficult, and often impossible, to observe. Thus, guidelines are formed by a series of single decisions that result in a policy without some of the decision makers being aware of that process. Secondly, public policy is a dynamic process, that is, a continuous activity taking place within a structure. To be sustained, it requires a continuous input of resources and motivation. It is a dynamic process, which changes with time, the sequences of its sub-processes and phases vary internally and with respect to each other. Thirdly, public policy involves the multiplicity of various components, structures and substructures. The identity of the structures and substructures and the degree of their involvement in policy making, vary among different issues, times, and societies. The structures and sub-structures mostly involved in policy making constitute the political institutions or political system of a society. Fourthly, the various structures and substructures make different contributions and sometimes unique contributions to public policy. What sort of contribution substructures make depends in part on their formal and informal characteristics, which vary from society to society. Furthermore public policy involves decision making that is, making a conscious choice between or among two or more alternatives. It is thus an aggregative form of decision making. Again, public policy, in most cases, lays down general directives, rather than detailed instructions on the main lines of action to be followed. After the main lines of action have been 7

8 decided on, detailed sub policies that translate the general policy into more concrete terms are usually needed to execute it. In addition public policy is action-oriented and results in external action, in changes in the decision-maker himself/herself, or in both. Furthermore, public policy is directed at the future. This is one of its most important characteristics, since it introduces the ever-present elements of uncertainty and doubtful prediction that establish the basic tone of nearly all policy making. In particular, because the future is uncertain, actual policy making tends to formulate policies in vague and elastic terms, to be continuous, so as to adjust policy to whatever the new facts may be. It is also important to note that public policy is mainly conducted by governmental organizations and institutions. One of the differences between making private policy and making public policy is that the latter mainly concerns actions to be taken by governmental organs. Of course, this is a matter of degree, public policy is also directed in part at private persons and non-governmental organizations and structures, as well as it calls for a law prohibiting a certain type of behavior a appeals to citizens to engage in private savings e.g. financial literacy week etc. but public policy, in most cases, is primarily directed at governmental organs, and only intermediately or secondarily at other sectors. Interestingly, public policy formally aims at achieving what is in the public interest. Even regimes whose real aim is, for example, to enrich a small oligarchy or to perpetuate the power of a dictator try to establish legitimacy, and gain the support or at least the acquiescence of the population, by presenting and explaining their policies in terms of the public interest. The term public interest appears nebulous and it generally conveys the idea of a general as opposed to sectional orientation and seems therefore to be important. The image of public interest as held in good faith by major policy makers has a tremendous influence on the public policy making process, and is therefore, at least as conceived by the various public policy making units, a real phenomenon, and an important operational tool for the study of policy making. Finally, public policy making formally aims at not only achieving what is in the public interest but also at doing by the best possible means. Public policy making aims at achieving the maximum net benefit (public interest achieved less cost of achievement). Benefits and cost take in part the form of realized values and impaired values, respectively, and cannot in most cases be expressed in commensurate units. Differences between Policy and a decision Decision is a conscious choice between two or more alternatives. The assumption is that there are more alternatives. A policy on the other hand is a purposive course of action or inaction which is followed by an actor or a set of actors in dealing with a matter of concern. It is goaloriented. Policy involves actions and inactions of governments. The objective is to solve social, economic and political problems in the state. From the two definitions the terms decision and policy may be used interchangeably, consequently some scholars have often overlooked the distinction between the two terms. There are however three differences between them. These are: 8

9 First, a policy is larger than a decision. Policy usually involves a series of more specific decisions sometimes in a more rational sequence. Does Ghana have energy policy? Does Ghana have a security policy? These policies if they exist will consist of series of decisions about the energy and national security sectors of the country. Secondly, a policy has wider ramifications and a longer time perspective than a decision. This is because a decision tends to be restricted to routine and repetitive matters of concern. If you decide to wear a smock this morning, it is a decision. Finally, the concept of a decision is often associated with a decision maker. The latter may be seen as an individual, a group or a particular organization. However, the study of a policy involves multiple interactions between many individuals, organizations and groups. Consequently, the whole concept of decision making may occasionally be challenged when it seems that events and the larger environment have forced a particular policy direction upon the agencies of government. Differences between Policy and Programme Policy is a broad statement of the goals, objectives and means, while a programme consist of the actions taken to achieve the ends of the objectives. It is apparent then that a variety of programmes may be developed in response to the same objectives or policy goals. The ends and means often go together. The problem with developing countries including Ghana is that in most cases very good policies are developed with laudable ends but no conscious effort is made at the time of the design of the policy to figure out the means with which such objectives are going to be realized. This inevitably leads to implementation nightmares. It is important to note that ends are predetermined by the means. The distinction between policy and a programme is however difficult to maintain in practice. It is obscured by the variety of levels at which the term policy is often used. For instance a policy may go through successive stages at which objectives are defined more precisely. A general statement that the health policy of a government is to improve the health care delivery of the people may be translated into a policy of providing health centers, hospitals, clinics, health posts etc in towns and villages and equipping them with drugs, equipment and personnel. This may be translated into a policy of full cost recovery or a mutual health insurance scheme. It must be noted that the terms policy and programme are sometimes used interchangeably. Activity State and explain any four features of a public a public policy.. 9

10 2. Outline the main differences between a policy, decision and a programme Summary Well done for completing section 2 of unit 1. You have learnt that public policy is a goaloriented behavior, futuristic and involves several governmental actors. The section also introduced you to the differences between a policy, a programme and a decision. You learnt that a policy is a broad statement of the goals, objectives and means, while a programme consist of the actions taken to achieve the ends of the objectives. You also noted that a decision is a conscious choice between two or more alternatives. Section 3: Reasons for studying Public Policies Introduction Welcome to section 3 of unit 1: Reasons for Studying Public Policies. As you have noted from the previous discussions, public policies affect the life of every single individual in the state. It is therefore important for you to know why you must study public policy. The understanding of this section will prove invaluable as you delve into other sections of this course so I encourage you to pay attention to the section. Objectives At the end of this section, you are expected to: Outline the place of public policy in political science Explain the main reasons for studying public policy Political Science and Public Policy Political Science, is the study of government and its institutions. It is the study of politics-the study of who gets what when and how. It is more than the study of governmental institutions that is unitary system of government, separation of powers, checks and balances, judicial review, the powers and duties of Parliament, the president and the courts among others. Traditional Political Science focuses primarily on these institutional arrangements as well as the philosophical justification of government. Political Science is more than the study of political processes, that is, campaigns and elections, voting, lobbying, legislating, and adjudicating. Modern behavioural Political Science focuses primarily on these processes (Dye 1998: 4). 10

11 Political Science is also the study of public policy. Here its main focus is the description and explanation of the causes and consequences of government activity. This focus involves a description of the content of public policy; an analysis of the impact of social, economic, and political forces on the content of public policy; an enquiry into the effect of various institutional arrangements and political processes on public policy; and an evaluation of the consequences of public policies on society, both intended and unintended (Dye 1998: 5). Reasons for the Study of Public Policies Public policy can be studied for a variety of reasons. Firstly, public policy can be studied for scientific understanding. Understanding the causes and consequences of public policy decisions improves our knowledge of society. Policy study helps us learn about the linkages between social and economic conditions in society, the responses of the political system to these conditions, and the effects, if any, of government activities on these conditions. Policy studies incorporate the ideas and methods of economic, sociology, psychology, history, law and public administration, as well as political science. It adds to the breadth, significance, reliability, and theoretical development of the social science generally (Dye 1998: 6). Secondly, policy study can be done for professional advice. Policies can be studied for professional reasons. Understanding the causes and consequences of public policy, permits us to apply social science knowledge to the solution of practical problems. Factual knowledge is a prerequisite to prescribing for the ills of society. If certain ends are desired, the question of what policies would best implement them is a factual question requiring scientific study. In other words, policy studies can produce professional advice, in terms of if then statements, about how to achieve desired goals. Government agencies, as well as private policy research organizations (think tanks), are usually more concerned with the practical application of knowledge about policy than with the development of scientific theory (Dye 1998: 6). Finally, public policy can be studied for political purposes. This is done to ensure that the nation adopts the right policies to achieve the right goals. It is frequently argued that political science should not be silent or impotent in the face of great social and political crises and that political scientist have moral obligation to advance specific public policies. An exclusive focus on institutions, processes, or behaviours is frequently looked on as dry, irrelevant and amoral because it does not direct attention to the really important policy questions facing the Ghanaian society. Policy studies can be understood not only for scientific and political reasons purposes but also to inform political discussions, advance the level of political awareness, and improve the quality of public policy. You must remember that these are very subjective purposes-ghanaians do not always agree on what constitutes the right policies or the right goals - but we will assume that knowledge is preferable to ignorance, even in politics (Dye 1998: 5). Activity 1.3 Explain the utility of a rigorous study of public polices 11

12 .. Summary Well done for completing this important segment of this course. You have learnt that the study of public policy is an important component of political science. It is mainly concerned with the description and explanation of the causes and consequences of government activity. You have learnt that we study policy for scientific, professional and political purposes. Let us now turn our attention to some of the key questions in policy analysis. Section 4: Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy Introduction You are warmly welcome to section 4 of unit 1: Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy. In your study of public policy, one key area that you must be interested in is policy analysis. Here I am interested in you finding out what governments do, why they do it, and what difference, if any, it makes to the society as a whole. Objectives At the end of this section, you should be able to: Explain policy analysis Account for the procedures in policy analysis Explain the differences if any between policy analysis and policy advocacy. Policy Analysis Defined The term policy analysis is variously defined. According to James Anderson, public policy analysis is the examination and description of the causes and consequences of public policies (Anderson 2011:10). Beckerman sees public policy analysis as the systematic investigation of alternative policy options and of the assembly and integration of the evidence for and against each option. According to Weimer and Vining (1992), policy analysis is a client-oriented advice to public decisions and informed by social values. In fine, public policy analysis is the activity of creating knowledge of and in the policy making process. In creating knowledge of the public policy making process, policy analysts investigate the causes, consequences, and performance of public policies and programmes. Such knowledge remains incomplete, however, unless it is made available to policy makers and the public they are obligated to serve. Only when knowledge of is linked to knowledge in can members of the legislature, executive and judicial bodies, along with citizens who have a stake in public decisions use the results of policy analysis to improve the policy-making process and its performance. Because the effectiveness of policy making depends upon access to the stock of available knowledge, the communication and use of 12

13 policy analysis are central to the practice and theory of public policy making (Weimer and Vining 1992: 1). The product of policy analysis is advice. It may simply be as simple as a statement linking a proposed action to a likely result: passage of bill A will result in consequence X. it may also be more comprehensive and quite complex: passage of bill A, which can be achieved with the greatest certainty through legislative strategy S, will result in aggregate social costs of C and aggregate cost B, but with a disproportionate costs for group one and disproportionate benefits for group two. At whatever extremes of depth and breadth, policy analysis is intended to inform some decisions, either implicitly (A will result in X) or explicitly (support A because it will result in X, which is good for you, your constituency, or your country) (Weimer and Vining 1992: 1) Procedures of Policy Analysis The methodology of policy analysis incorporates five general procedures that are common to most efforts at human problem solving: definition, prediction, prescription, describing and evaluation. In policy analysis these procedures have been given special names as follows: The first is problem structuring. This yields information about the conditions giving rise to a policy problem. Problem structuring can supply policy-relevant knowledge that challenges the assumptions underlying the definition of problems reaching the policy-making process through agenda setting. Problem structuring can consist in discovering hidden assumptions, diagnosing causes, mapping possible objectives, synthesizing conflicting views, and designing new policy options. The second is forecasting. Forecasting can provide policy-relevant knowledge about future states of affairs which are likely to occur as a consequences of adopting alternatives, including doing nothing, that are under the consideration at the phase of policy formulation. Forecasting can examine the plausible, potential, and normatively valued futures, estimate the consequences of existing a proposed policies, specify probable future constraints on the achievement of objectives, and estimate the political feasibility (support and opposition) of different option. The third step is recommendation. Recommendation yields policy-relevant knowledge about the benefits and costs of alternatives the future consequences of which have been estimated through forecasting, thus aiding policy makers in the policy adoption stage. Recommendation helps estimate levels of risk and uncertainty, identify externalities and spillovers, specify criteria for making choices, and assign administrative responsibility for implementing policies. The fourth step is monitoring. Monitoring provides policy-relevant knowledge about the consequently of previously adopted policies, thus assisting policy makers in the policy implementation phase. Many agencies regularly monitor the outcomes and impacts of policies by means of various policy indicators in areas of health, education, housing, welfare, crime, and science and technology. Monitoring helps to assess degrees of compliance, discover unintended consequences of policies and programmes, identify implementation obstacles and constraints, and locate sources of responsibility for departures from policies. The final step is evaluation. Evaluation yields policy-relevant knowledge about the discrepancies between expected and actual policy performance, thus assisting policy makers in the assessment 13

14 phase of the policy-making process. Monitoring not only results in conclusion about the extent to which problems have been alleviated, it also may contribute to the clarification and critique of values driving a policy, aid in the adjustment or reformulation of policies, and establish a basis for restructuring problems. A good example of evaluation is the type of analysis that contributes to the clarification, critique, and debate of values by challenging the dominant mode of technical reasoning which underlies environmental policies in parts of the world. Characteristics/Feature of Policy Analysis According to Thomas Dye, public policy analysis involves the following characteristics (Thomas Dye 1998:8). Firstly, a primary concern with explanation rather than prescription. Policy recommendations, if they are made at all, are subordinate to description and explanation. There is an implicit judgment that understanding is a prerequisite to prescription, and that understanding is best achieved through careful analysis rather than rhetoric or polemics. Secondly, there is a rigorous search for the causes and consequences of public policies. This search involves the use of scientific standards of inference. Sophisticated quantitative may be useful in establishing valid inferences about causes and consequences, but they are not really essential. Finally, there is an effort to develop and test general propositions about the causes and consequences of public policy and to accumulate reliable research findings of general relevant. The object is to develop general theories about public policy that are reliable and that apply to different government agencies and different policy issues. Policy analysts prefer to develop explanations that fit more than one decision or case study, that is, explanations that stand the test of time in a variety of settings. Preparation for Policy Analysis Policy analysis is as much an art and a craft as a science. Just as the successful portraitist must be able to apply the skills of the craft of painting within an aesthetic perspective, the successful policy analyst must be able to apply basic skills within a reasonably consistent and realistic perspective on the role of government in society. In order to integrate effectively the art and craft of policy analysis, preparations in five areas is essential (Weimer and Vining 1992: 12-13) First, analyst must know how to gather, organize, and communicate information in situations where deadlines are strict and access to relevant people is limited. They must be able to develop strategies for quickly understanding the nature of policy problems and the range of possible solutions. They must also be able to identify, at least qualitatively, the likely costs and benefits of alternative solutions and communicate these assessments to their clients. Second, analysts need a perspective for putting perceived social problems in context. When is it legitimate for government to intervene in private affairs? It can be argued that the government can intervene when there is market failure-a situation where the pursuit of private interests does not lead to an efficient use of society s resources or fair distribution of society s goods. 14

15 Third, analysts need technical skills to enable them to predict better and to evaluate more confidently the consequences of alternative policies. The disciplines of economics, political science and statistics serve as primary sources of these skills. Fourth, analysts must have an understanding of political and organizational behavior in order to predict, and perhaps influence, the feasibility of adoption and successful implementation of policies. Also, understanding the worldviews of clients and potential opponents enables the analyst to marshal more effectively evidence and arguments. Finally, analyst should have an ethical framework that explicitly takes account of their relationships to clients. Analysts often face dilemmas when the private preferences and interests of their clients diverge substantially from their own perceptions of the public interest. Activity 1.4 What is policy analysis?. Explain the main procedure for policy analysis.. Summary Once again you have successfully completed this section with a lot of commitment. Well done. In this section you have been introduced to the dynamics of policy analysis as a prelude to the discussion on the relationship between policy analysis and policy advocacy. You noted that policy analysis is the examination and description of the causes and consequences of public policies. We discussed the main procedures for undertaking a policy analysis, it characteristics of and the preparation one has to do in order to succeed as a policy analyst. Section 5: Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy Introduction You are welcome to section 5 of unit 1: Policy analysis and Policy advocacy. Since you have covered policy analysis in section 4, it is important for you to fully understand the relationship between policy analysis and policy advocacy. 15

16 Objectives At the end of this section, you should be able to: Differentiate between policy analysis and policy advocacy Explain the procedures of public policy analysis Discuss some basic questions in policy analysis Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy It is important to distinguish policy analysis from policy advocacy. Explaining the causes and consequences of various policies is not equivalent to prescribing what policies government ought to pursue. Learning why governments do what they do and what the consequences of their action is not the same as saying what government ought to do or bringing about changes in what they do (Thomas Dye 1998:8). Policy advocacy requires the skills or rhetoric, persuasion, organization and activism. Policy analysis on the other hand, encourages scholars and students to attack critical policy issues with the tools of systematic enquiry. There is an implied assumption in policy analysis that developing scientific knowledge about the forces shaping public policy and the consequences of policy designs is itself a socially relevant activity and that such analysis is a prerequisite to prescription, advocacy and activism. In short, policy analysis might be labeled the thinking man s response to demands that social science become more relevant to the problems of society. Public policy analysis is thus a demanding exercise which public servants must undertake. Policy analysts are wide ranging in their consideration of factors that might influence policies. They examine traits of administrative agencies and other official bodies, the level of economic development or the political culture which exist in an agency s clients, and historical experiences (Thomas Dye 1998:8). Procedures for Policy Analysis The methodology of policy analysis incorporates five (5) general procedures that are common to most efforts at human problem solving. These include; definition, prediction, prescription, description and evaluation. In policy analysis these procedures have been given special names which are explained below: Problem Structuring/ Definition-This yields information about the conditions giving rise to a policy problem. Problem restructuring can supply policy relevant knowledge that challenges the assumption underlying the definition of problems reaching the policy-making process through the agenda setting. Problem structuring can consist of in discovering hidden assumptions, diagnosing causes, mapping possible objectives, synthesizing conflicting views and designing new policy options. Forecasting- Forecasting can provide policy-relevant knowledge about future state of affairs which are likely to occur as a consequence of adopting alternatives, including doing nothing, that are under consideration at the phase of policy formulation. Forecasting can examine the 16

17 plausible, potential, and normatively valued features, estimates the consequences of existing and proposed policies; specify probable future constraints on the achievement of objectives, and estimate the political feasibility (support and opposition) of different options. Recommendations-Recommendation yields policy-relevant knowledge about the benefits and costs of alternatives in the future consequences of which have been estimated through forecasting, thus aiding policy makers in the policy adoption phase. Recommendation helps estimates levels of risks and uncertainty, identify externalities and spillovers, specify criteria for making choices, and assign administrative responsibilities for implementing policies. Monitoring- Monitoring provides policy-relevant knowledge about the consequences of previously adopted policies, thus assisting policy makers in the policy implementation phase. Many agencies regularly monitor the outcomes and impacts of policies by means of various policy indicators in areas of health, education, housing, welfare, crime, and science and technology. Monitoring helps to assess degrees of compliance, discover unintended consequences of policies and programmes, identify implementational obstacles and constraints, and locate sources of responsibility for departures from policies. Evaluation- Evaluation yields policy-relevant knowledge about discrepancies between expected and actual policy performance, thus assisting policy makers in the policy assessment phase of the policy-making process. Monitoring not only results in conclusions about the extent to which problems have been alleviated; it also may contribute to the clarification and critique of values driving a policy, aid in the adjustment or reformulation of policies, and establish a basis for restructuring problems. A good example of evaluation is the type of analysis that contributes to the clarification, critique, and debates of values by challenging the dominant mode of technical reasoning which underlies environmental policies in parts of the world. Basis Questions in Policy Analysis What can we learn about public policy? First of all, we can describe public policy-we can learn what government is doing (and not doing) in welfare, defense, education, health, energy, water supply, and so on. A factual basis of information about national policy is really an indispensable part of everyone s education (Thomas Dye 1987:6). Second, we can inquire about the causes, or determinants, of public policy. why is public policy what it is? Why do governments do what they do? We might inquire about the effects of political institutions, processes and behaviours on public policies. Does it make any difference in tax and spending levels whether the NDC or NPP control Parliament and the Presidency? What is the impact of the activities of interest groups on parliament? etc. Third, we can inquire about the consequences, or impacts, of public policy. What difference, if any does public policy makes in people s lives? We inquire about the effects of public policy on political institutions and processes. All these questions are interrelated. You need to think of the policy analysis as a series of questions about the relationship, or linkages, between social and economic conditions, characteristics of political systems, and the content of public policy (Thomas Dye 1987:6). 17

18 Activity State any two differences between policy analysis and policy advocacy 2. Explain any two questions usually addressed by policy analysts 3. Critique the procedure of policy analysis Summary Congratulations for completion yet another section of unit I. I have introduced you to the main difference between policy analysis and policy advocacy. I indicated that while policy analysis is concerned with knowing the causes and consequences of policies, policy advocacy involves the analyst pressing specific options and ideas in the policy process, either individually, or in association with others, perhaps through a pressure group. Procedures including problem structuring, forecasting, monitoring and evaluation have also been explained. We finally addressed some of the fundamental questions in policy analysis. Section 6: Category of Public Policies Introduction Welcome to section 6 of unit 1: Category of Public Policies. Be informed that the government of Ghana like all governments all over the world has been increasingly active in producing public policies. Every year a number of laws are passed. The proliferation of public policies has occurred in such traditional areas of governmental action as foreign policy, transportation, education, welfare, law enforcement, business and labour regulation, and international trade. In this section, I am going to introduce you to the variety of public policies that the government of Ghana formulates. Objectives By the end of this section, you should be able to: Identify the different category of public policies that exist in Ghana State the importance of the different category of public policies in Ghana Variety of Policies in Ghana Giving the large number and complexity of public policies in Ghana, the task of trying to make sense of them is enormous. This section is therefore intended to summarize a number of general typologies that political scientists and others have developed for categorizing public policies. The typology differentiates policies on the basis of their effects on society and the relationship among those involved in their formation. 18