PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS: A SHIFT FROM GOVERNMENT TO GOVERNANCE

Introduction: Good morning! I’m going to report about Public Policy Analysis: A Shift from Gov’t. To Governance. So let
us first discuss about what is the meaning, nature, types and processes of public policy before we discuss about the
policy analysis and the shift of government to governance

Public Policies are as old as governments. Whatever may be the form, oligarchy, monarchy, democracy, etc. whenever
and wherever governments have existed; public policies have been formulated and implemented. To cope with the
varied problems and demands of the people the government has to make many policies.

So, let us define what public policy means

Public Policy Defined

 Policy- is a course of action or a series of program adopted by a group or a person or a government in view to
address or respond to existing issues or concerns

The term public in public policy is associated to government in power. Therefore,

Public Policy is an action taken by the government to meet a particular demand growing out of the society

To further know about public policy the following are the nature of public policy

Nature of Public Policy

1. Public policies are goal oriented

Public policies are formulated and implemented in order to attain the objectives which the government has in
view for the ultimate benefit of the masses in general. These policies clearly spell out the programmes of the
government
2. Public policy is the outcome of the government’s collective actions
It means that it is a pattern or course of activity of the governmental officials and political actors in making the
public policy
3. Public policy is what the government actually decides or chooses to do
We all know that the government is the one who makes and implements the policies so therefore the
government has the power of what public policies to be implemented
4. Public policy is positive in the sense that it depicts the concern of the government and involves its action to a
particular problem on which the policy is made.
It means that policy is positive because it shows that the government really address of the concern of the people

Types of Public Policy

1. Substantive- these policies are concerned with the general welfare and development of the society
The programs like provision of education and employment opportunities, economic stabilization, law and order
enforcement, anti-pollution legislation etc. are the result of substantive policy formulation
2. Regulatory- are concerned with regulation of trade, business, safety measures, public utilities, etc.
This type of regulation is done by independent organizations that work on behalf of the government
3. Distributive- is meant for specific segments of society. It can be in the area of grant of goods, public welfare or
health services, etc.
These mainly include all public assistance and welfare programs. Some more examples of distributive policies
are adult education programme, food relief, social insurance, vaccination camps
4. Redistributive- are concerned with the rearrangement of policies which are concerned with bringing about basic
social and economic changes
Certain public goods and welfare services are disproportionately divided among certain segments of the society,
these goods and services are streamlined through redistributive policies

Public Policy Process

- Relates to the mechanisms through which public policy is made

- According to Paul A. Sebatier (1999,p.3) the public policymaking process includes the manner in which problems
get conceptualized and brought to the government for solution; governmental institutions formulate
alternatives and select policy solutions to get implemented, evaluated and revised
 Policy
Maintenance,
Agenda Setting
Succesion or
Termination

Policy
Evaluation
Formulation

Implementation Legitimation

 Agenda setting- Identifying problems that require government attention, deciding which issue deserve the most
attention and defining the nature of the problem
Once an issue is determined to exist a more careful and planned elaboration takes place, this time a systematic
policy proposal
 Policy Formulation- is the conceptualization stage of policy process where the detailed development of a policy
is framed into more or less concrete proposals
Policy formulation is the job from government officials, politicians, consulted groups and key advisers. Policy
formulation entails also the definition of issues, framing of objectives and setting of priorities
 Legitimation- ensuring that the chosen policy instruments have support
It can involve one or a combination of legislative approval, executive approval, seeking consent through
consultation with interest groups and referenda
 Implementation- refers to putting out the policy into practice
Involves establishing or employing an organization to take responsibility for implementation, ensuring that the
organization has the resources to do so, and making sure that policy decisions are carried out as planned
 Evaluation- is the appraisal or review of a policy being implemented as to its success or failure
Assessing the extent to which the policy was successful or the policy decision was the correct one; if it was
implemented correctly and if so, had the desired effect

*GIVE EXAMPLE OF PUBLIC POLICY

Public Policy Process in the Philippines

Several Institutional built-in systems of policy-making in the Philippines, some of these are:
- National Economic Development Authority( NEDA) for socio-economic policies
- National Security Council (NSC) for national security and defense concerns
- Legislative Executive Development Authority Council (LEDAC) for general legislative agendas
- Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) for concerns affecting basic services within Metro Manila
While the last three agencies mentioned do perform certain stages of the policy process, none of them have a
more defined and extensive mandate and a more permanent structure than NEDA. Hence, the NEDA will be
used as the unit of analysis to illustrate the executive branch policy process in the
country.

NEDA (National Economic Development Authority) The NEDA is the highest policymaking body responsible for all
aspects of the development program. The NEDA Board is headed by the President with selected Cabinet secretaries
and other executive staff officers as members. On the other hand, the NEDA Secretariat is the research arm of the
NEDA Board. It provides technical support in matters involving policy development, policy formulation,
implementation and evaluation. The NEDA Director-General heads the Secretariat, and is also the Socio-Economic
Planning Secretary (per EO Nr. 230).

Policy Stream

Agenda- Actual performance during the preceding year; new development and emerging issues in the local and
international economics; shifts in the emphasis of the administration

Policy Formulation- Economic model, input-output analysis, accounting frameworks, project evaluation and
prioritization

Legitimation- Medium- Term Development plan (MTDP); state of the nation address (SONA)
 Implementation – Forge a consensus at the pre implementation phase since it is the different departments who are
actually tasked to implement the various programs stipulated in the MTDP and other policy declarations

Evaluation- Feedback and monitoring mechanisms through its established agencies

The agenda is normally set after evaluating certain indicators and statistics fed by other government agencies such
as the National Statistics Office (NSO), National Statistics and Coordination Board (NSCB), Population Commission
(POPCOM), Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and all the other departments. This agenda would
take into consideration (a) the actual performance during the preceding year, (b) new developments and emerging
issues in the local and international economies and (c) shifts in the policy emphasis of the administration (NEDA
1995, p. 13-15).

To ensure agreement in policy formulation, the Board is assisted by six inter-agency committees, each responsible
for specific areas within the development program. One of these is the Development Budget Coordination
Committee (DBCC). The DBCC serves as the link between planning and budgeting to guarantee conformity of the
national budget with the development plan. In formulating the policy, NEDA utilizes several methodologies classified
in the following categories: (a) Econometric Models; (b) Input-Output analysis;(c) Accounting Frameworks; and
Project Evaluation and prioritization techniques. These tools have significantly increased the policy analysis and
forecasting capabilities of the NEDA (NEDA 1995, p. 18). In short, as designed, policy research and analysis are the
foundations in the policy formulation processes. The policy issues covered by the NEDA are: social
development(includes education and manpower development, social welfare and community development, health
and nutrition, and housing); investment (including evaluation and approval of public sector projects); infrastructure
development; trade and tariff matters; and the generation and use of official external assistance.

After the tedious process of policy formulation comes the legitimation stage. This comes in the form of the Medium-
Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP), which is usually promulgated with the first State of the Nation Address
(SONA) of the president. The MTPDP encapsulates the bulk of the new policy directions of the Administration. It
practically covers the whole range of national policy issues, namely: macroeconomic policies, poverty alleviation,
Information and Communications Technology (ICT), tourism, infrastructure development, agriculture, agrarian
reform, environment, education, health care, housing, peace and order, and foreign policies. Benchmarks and
standards are stated in both the MTPDP and SONA as tangible targets to be achieved and as measures of the
administration’s success or failure.

The rationale behind the Cabinet-level interagency structure of the NEDA is to forge a consensus at the pre-
implementation phase (NEDA 1995, p. 13),since it is the different departments who are actually tasked to
implement the various programs stipulated in the MTPDP and other policy declarations. This set-up ensures
cohesion and coordination in the implementation phase of the program.

Finally, The NEDA has set up periodic feedback and monitoring mechanisms through its attached agencies for the
careful evaluation of the program implementation and economic performance, which would become essential
inputs to cover policy gaps and the improvements of the policy for the next policy cycle.

Stakeholders in the Philippines Public Policy

Executive Branch Political Parties Legislative Branch Citizens Judicial Branch

Media Local Government Interest Groups Political Consultants

Public Policy Analysis

- Jenkins-Smith,1990: Policy analysis is a set of techniques and criteria with which to evaluate public policy
options and select among them to rationalize the development and implementation of public policy…and as the
means to greater efficiency and equity in allocation of public resources
- Public policy analysis is the monitoring of different government agendas that directly affect a specific
community
The study of public policy rather came late in the 1960’s when the search for relevance and meaning of
government programs became a growing call for bureaucrats and administrators. It was during this period when
a distinctive area of political science emerged and developed into what we know today as a policy analysis. This
aims to examine how the policy outcomes could be improved for the better
Ultimately policy can be evaluated only in the light of its impact, according to what actually happens.

Government and Governance

- Government is a group of people who rule or run the administration of a country. In other words, it may be said
that a government is the body of representatives that governs and controls the state at a given time.
Government is the medium through which the power of the State is employed
- Governance is the act of governing or ruling. It is a set of rules and laws framed by the government that are to
be implemented through the representatives of the State.

Government Governance
• rules and controls • orchestrates and manages
• relies on force to exact compliance • Power rests on trust the players have on
• control over management the director and each other
• have a connotation of being interested • management over control
only in preserving peace and order • implies leadership toward societal
• the State is the principal actor in gov't. development
• all of society is involved in managing
public affairs

To govern is to exercise power and authority over a territory, system or organization. This applies to both
government and governance. The exercise of authority is uppermost in government and remains significant in
governance, but is nolonger its single focus. This is because the power in governance is not so much wielded as
shared, and authority is defined not so much by the control of the ruler as by the consent and participation of the
governed.

In traditional parlance, government rules and controls, but in a state of governance, it orchestrates and manages.

To rule is to be the sole authority, for which the appropriate response is to obey. A government that rules relies on
force to exact compliance, and we know from introductory political science that the state has the monopoly of
legitimate violence. It enacts laws binding on all the inhabitants, and metes out sanctions according to these laws.
To orchestrate is to call on everyone to play a part in moving the society. Power rests on the trust the players have
on the director and on each other. Because built on trust, transparency in the conduct of governing is essential. Laws
still bind all, but they are laws they had a part in bringing about.

So, the 4th one government prefers control over management while governance prefers management over control.

To control is to direct what each part of the system must do. It assumes that the controller knows the goals and is
certain how an action it requires can lead to it. Deviation will be viewed as error in a context of full knowledge. This
is how machines follow orders unwaveringly.

Governance chooses management over control because its system is permeable, admits of outside influences,
assumes no omnipotence or omniscience on the part of the decision maker,and subjects decisions to the evaluation
and critique of all those with a stake in them.

The fifth one the government have a connotation of being interested only in preserving peace and order. We all
know that the primary function of government is to preserve peace and order in the society. For governance implies
leadership toward societal development. It means that the leadership is shared between the players toward the
development of a society

And lastly for Government the State is the principal actor in government while in governance all of society is
involved in managing public affairs
The Push for Governance

It may be said that a key factor for the push for governance is the interaction of the three sectors in the post-World
War II namely the:

 State- represented by the government

 Civil Society- consists of the complex of citizens and groups outside government but working in the public
arena
It is sometimes called by other names such as non-governmental organization or NGO’s
Civil Society organizations attempt to represent the interests of the inarticulate and the excluded even as
they endeavor to organize them so that they may raise their own voices on social issues and exercise their
own power themselves and the collective life of the nation
 Private Sector- takes up its role as the engine of the society
As President Estrada stated, their role is “to create wealth for distribution, to harness the capabilities and
resources of the strong.” The state steps back from what may have been a primary role in the economy to
enable the invisible hand of competition to control the actions of firms. Efficiency and economy are
expected products of corporate governance. The state guarantees a level playing field for those able to
compete, and turns its attention to the provision of safety nets for those unable to do so. The state’s
avowal of minimal intervention in the economy does not absolve
it of the task of watching out for the public interest.

Where society is stable and has no great divisions, there would be no necessity to transform government into
governance. Government is sufficient where it needs only to maintain peace and order, and allow the hidden hand
of the market to regulate the economy. However, such business as usual cannot be maintained where rapid social
and technological change occurs in a situation of large inequality between rich and poor, and huge gaps between
the genders, the generations and the cultural, ethnic and indigenous peoples of a territory. These have been the
factors that push for good governance instead of just good government.

The Quest for Growth and Development

It may be said that a key factor for the push for governance is the interaction of the three sectors in the post-World
War II. Since the Industrial Revolution, the market had the principal role in growth, with the state needed only to
nurture the climate that would allow it to grow. However, the quarter century after World War II swung the
pendulum to the state. In the West, John Maynard Keynes gave theoretical justification for the state to manipulate
price signals and fight unemployment and business downswings. Meanwhile, the socialist states installed and
consolidated central planning systems.

In the Third World, the state also reigned supreme as “theprincipal planner, energizer, promoter, and director of the
accelerated development effort” (Lewis, 1964: 26). In the attempt to accelerate economic growth, the state not only
had to assume a central role in planning for the whole economy and society, but also to create its own enterprises.
However, at its best, the state had to saddle these economic institutions with social functions, making it difficult to
compete on equal terms in the economy. At the other extreme, elite control of the enterprises or of the state itself
made them subject to rentseeking and corruption, leading to losses that were shouldered not by those responsible
for them, but all taxpayers in a country.

In many states where the taxation system was regressive, the losses were borne primarily by the poor.

Thus, a quarter-century of the interventionist state saw widespread dissatisfaction about it from all fronts. In the
First World, the trigger was the burgeoning welfare bill, in the Second World, the failure of state planning
symbolized by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in the Third World, the inability of states, even when achieving
some economic prosperity, to check the growth of inequality and poverty in their territories. Governmental rent-
seeking, inefficiency and corruption led to demands for privatization, which pushed the state away from its central
role. However, the private sector by itself could not consider the distributional questions that led to the rethinking
of development as economic growth in the first place. The inability of economic gains to produce acceptable levels
of redistribution, poverty reduction and political freedoms woke up civil society. But they could criticize government
and set up alternative delivery systems but could not provide nationwide coverage. Similarly, they decried the
private sweatshops but could not set up the industries to take their place. Clearly, no one sector could manage
society by itself but each had a role to play in making it move forward.